IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 665 of 2000. Judgment reserved on: 15.5.2008 Date of decision: 19.5.2008 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Harvind Singh …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 1.9.1999 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur in Criminal Case No.II-II/97, acquitting the respondent under Sections 279, 304-A IPC, arising out of FIR No.72/95 registered at Police Station, Shahpur. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that respondent on 12.5.1995 at about 6.30 pm at Kotla, drove Scooter bearing registration No.JK-02-1990, on public road rashly negligently and dashed it with Champa Devi, who sustained injuries in the accident and later on died. The matter was reported to the police, statement of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… PW-8 R.D. Sharma Ex.PW-6/A was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., there upon FIR Ex.PW-3/A was registered. PW-4 Dr. Neelam Mehta vide OPD slip Ex.PW-4/A examined the injured Champa Devi, who later on died. On completion of investigation challan was presented under Sections 279, 304/A IPC against the respondent and he was accordingly charged, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced documentary evidence also. The statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded his innocence. The respondent did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate ultimately acquitted the respondent, hence appeal by the State. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that PW-8, PW-1 and PW-5 have proved the prosecution case. The rash and negligent driving of respondent at public place which caused death of Champa Devi has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on record. The learned Court below has not appreciated the evidence properly and has thus, erred in acquitting the respondent. He has urged for setting aside the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the prosecution case is full of contradictions. The learned Court below has rightly acquitted the respondent. Mr. Gupta has supported the impugned judgment. …3… 4. PW-1 Suman Kumar has stated that on 12.5.1995 at about 6.30 pm Champa Devi had come to purchase vegetables and when she was at the shop of a vegetable vendor at bus stand, a scooter bearing registration No.JK-02-1990 hit Champa Devi, she became unconscious and died later on. In cross-examination he has stated that the accident took place just in front of the shop of Litru Ram vegetable vendor. He has not seen the scooter hitting Champa Devi. The residence of Champa Devi is at a distance of 25 meters from the place of accident and from there road is not visible. PW-2 Manohar Lal is a formal witness with respect to taking into possession of scooter in question. PW-3 Amar Singh Inspector has proved FIR Ex.PW-3/A. PW-4 Dr. Neelam Mehta has stated that she had examined Champa Devi on 12.5.1995 vide OPD slip Ex.PW-4/A. The injured was given first aid and she was declared dead at 9.45 pm. PW-5 Yog Raj in his examination-in-chief has stated that one Sikh gentleman was driving the scooter which hit an old lady who was crossing the road, who later on died. In the Court he could not identify the person who was driving the scooter. PW-6 Om Parkash ASI has stated that he had recorded the statement Ex.PW-6/A of R.D. Sharma and thereafter FIR Ex.PW-3/A was recorded. In cross- examination he has stated that on 12.5.1995 and 13.5.1995, no one gave information regarding the accident. The police post is at a distance of ½ K.M. from the place of accident. The information of the accident was given on 14.5.1995. PW-7 Kirpa Ram ASI had prepared the challan. PW-8 R.D. Sharma has stated that on 12.5.1995 at about 6.30 pm he was in his shop out side his …4… residence, his mother had gone to market for purchasing vegetables. A scooter bearing registration No.JK-02-1990 came from Shahpur side and struck against his mother, who felled down and sustained injuries. The accused was driving the scooter. He and others took his mother to hospital but she ultimately died. He reported the matter to the police and his statement Ex.PW-6/A was recorded. In cross- examination he has stated that he remained busy for the treatment of his mother on 12.5.1995 and on 13.5.1995 in her cremation and only thereafter on 14.5.1995 he reported the matter to the police. He made request not to conduct the postmortem of his mother. The accident took place just in front of his house. At the time of accident he was standing near his shop. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW-6/A. 5. PW-1, PW-5 and PW-8 are the witnesses, who have allegedly seen the accident. PW-1 in his statement has stated that he had not actually seen the scooter hitting Champa Devi. PW-5 has not identified the accused in the Court. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination conducted by prosecution nothing material was extracted favouring the prosecution. Ex.PW-6/B is the site plan in which place of accident has been shown at point ‘A’. On one side of point ‘A’ out side the road four shops of Vinay Kumar, Kuldip, Vikrant and Rattan Singh have been shown. On the other side at point ‘A’ out side the road Litru Ram’s vegetable cart has been shown. PW-8 in his statement Ex.PW-6/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has stated that at the time of accident, he was standing out side his house and in his cross-examination in the Court he has stated that …5… accident took place just in front of his house. The house of Champa Devi or PW-8 has not been shown in site plan Ex.PW-6/B. PW-1 has stated that the place of accident is 25 meters from the house of Champa Devi and from there road is not visible. In these circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated version of PW-8. It is not the case of the prosecution that accident took place at an isolated place where independent witnesses were not available. PW-8 has stated that after the accident he and other persons took Champa Devi to the hospital. The prosecution has not given any explanation why vegetable vendor Litru Ram and other shopkeepers like Vinay Kumar, Kuldip, Vikrant and Rattan Singh whose shops have been shown in site plan Ex.PW-6/B have not been examined. They were the most natural witnesses as the accident took place just in front of their shops. 6. It has also come on record that police post is at a distance of ½ K.M. from the place of accident but police was informed about the accident only on 14.5.1995 by PW-8, there upon his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. PW-4 Dr. Neelam Mehta attended Champa Devi on 12.5.1995 vide OPD slip Ex.PW-4/A. It is reasonable to infer that at the time of examination of Champa Devi the concerned doctor must have been informed by the attendant of Champa Devi that she sustained injuries in the accident. In the normal course doctor is expected to inform the police in such a situation but why the police was not informed that has also not been explained. The police was informed on the 3rd day of the occurrence. The explanation given by PW-8 for giving information late to the …6… police in first instance appears to be reasonable but when it is scrutinized closely the same appears to be by way of after thought. The accident took place on 12.5.1995 at about 6.30 pm, it was not necessary for PW-8 to inform the police personally by visiting the police station. He could have informed the police on telephone or by instructing some other person. The purpose of information to the police is to put the lawful machinery in motion to proceed in accordance with law. 7. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has discussed the evidence and has rightly appreciated the material on record. The prosecution has failed to show that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court from the material on record is perverse or is not at all possible. This Court in appeal will not substitute its view simply on the ground that another view is also possible unless it is shown that the view taken by the learned trial Court is absolutely wrong, ill-founded and not at all possible from the material on record. 8. The result of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. May 19, 2008 (sks)