IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.154 of 2005. Decided on: 18.10.2011 _______________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Chunni Lal …..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant : Mr. A.K Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. J.R Palsara, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J (oral): The respondent was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 427 I.P.C in police Challan No. 32-I/2002. The State felt aggrieved and filed the present appeal. 2. In short, necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. On 15.11.2001around 11.45 a.m. when PW-3 Meena Ram was sitting in his shop at village Jhungi, a truck bearing Registration No. HP-51- 2211 being driven at high speed dashed against the wall of the house of the complainant by which a portion Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? collapsed and developed some cracks. The truck in question was being driven by the accused allegedly in rash and negligent manner and by this act a heavy loss has been caused to the complainant. 3. The police was informed. To this effect Rapat Ex. PW- 7/A was recorded in the police Station, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW-1/A was registered. 4. Police swung into action, visited the spot prepared the site plan of the place of incident, took the truck into possession and got it mechanically examined. 5. The police recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Challan was finalized and presented in the Court for the trial of the respondent. At the end of trial, respondent was acquitted for the aforesaid offences. 6. The respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He admitted that on the date of alleged accident, he was the driver of the said vehicle and also admitted that the complainant, at the relevant time, was sitting in his shop. But he denied the rash and negligent driving of the said truck and also denied that his truck struck against the wall of the house of the complainant. To prove his case, he also examined DW-1 Panna Lal. 7. After the complete trial, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the statement of the prosecution witnesses was not inspiring confidence and relied upon the statement of defence witness that the accused was not at fault. 8. Mr. A.K Bansal, Ld. Addl. Advocate General forcefully argued that the findings of learned trial Court as recorded in para 12 of the judgment dehors the evidence, and are imaginary, thus liable to be set aside. It is also argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in the right perspective and there are enough grounds to convert the acquittal into conviction. 9. On the other hand Mr. G.R Palsara, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and further impressed upon that the reasons given by learned trial Court for acquitting the accused are borne out from the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference is called for. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. 11. The respondent has admitted that he was driving his truck on the date of alleged occurrence. According to the prosecution the said truck had struck against the wall of the house of complainant. The police was also informed and took photographs Ex. P-1 to P-10. of the truck in the said position as it struck against the house of the complainant. PW-3 Meena Ram substantiated his version eventually given before the police. He categorically stated that the truck in question was in high speed and hit against the wall of the house. In his cross-examination, he admitted that it was descending towards his shop from the side the truck was coming and denied that truck was parked on the parking place near his shop. He further denied that cracks in his house had developed due to earthquake. He also denied that he didn’t see when the truck struck against the wall of his house. 12. PW-12 Rajkumar the Photographer was called by the police who took the photographs aforesaid. In his cross- examination he denied that there was a parking place on the side of house aforesaid. 13. PW-5 Kashmir Singh categorically stated that accident in question took place because of the negligence of respondent. Rather in his cross-examination he testified that truck was being driving by the respondent in rash and negligent manner. 14. PW-10 HC Moti Ram stated that at the place of accident the width of the road was about 9 feet and there was very small space besides the road for parking and for giving pass. 15. PW-12 Raj Kumar has also supported the version of complainant. In his cross-examination nothing material could be extracted which could favour the accused. Of course, PW-1 Sh. Brij Lal turned hostile but in his statement he specifically stated that respondent was driving the truck which struck against the house of the complainant. 16. Admittedly the respondent was driving the truck at the relevant time but could not explain what were the circumstances beyond his control, to which caused accident DW-1 Panna Lal stated that on the aforesaid date the truck was parked near the house of complainant. The complainant and respondent were conversing with each other to settle some accounts, over which the complainant got offended and threatened the respondent that in case he would not pay his balance amount, he would file a case against the respondent for getting compensation . Complainant lodged a complaint with the police, police arrived at the spot, but they did not record his statement. 17. Surprisingly, no such suggestion was put to the I.O that the said witness was present and his statement was not recorded, even the defence taken was also not put to the complainant. 18. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, in my opinion, the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is perverse. The accident in question stand proved, which caused damage to the building of the complainant, on account of rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The onus was on respondent/accused to prove that he was driving the vehicle with due care and caution but he failed to discharge it. I do not find any material contradiction in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, acquittal of the respondent for the offences aforesaid is set aside. Accordingly, the respondent is held guilty for offences under Section 279 and 427 of I.P.C. As such, he stands convicted. 19. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for convict/respondent submitted that accident in question took place about 10 years ago and respondent has faced torture of trial and uncertainty in appeal, He is sole bread earner of his family and lenient view be taken. 20. After considering the above submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and keeping in view the time gap when the alleged accident took place and also that the respondent is not a previous convict, in my opinion ends of justice would be met in case the respondent sentenced to pay a tune of Rs. 500/- for each of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and further till the rising of the Court under Section 427 of IPC. If the respondent/convict failed to make payment of fine aforesaid, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, respondent is also ordered to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant for the damages caused to his house. Thus the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,000/- in total shall be deposited by the respondent in the learned trial Court on or before 22.11.2011. In case of its realization the compensation aforesaid shall be released to the complainant Meena Ram(PW-1). 21. In result appeal filed by the State is allowed and is disposed of. October 18, 2011. (Surinder Singh),J. (priti