IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.556 of 1996 Decided on: 28th April, 2010 State of H.P …..Appellant. VERSUS Jiwan Parkash & ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Shri K.D.Sood, Advocate with Mr.Mukul Sood, counsel, for the respondents No.1 to 8 and 10. Mr.Vijay Verma, Advocate vice Mr.Onkar Jairath, counsel for respondent No.9. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 26.9.1995 delivered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No.22 of 1990 whereby he acquitted the accused of having 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 279, 307, 323, 336, 341, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. From the evidence on record, it stands proved that truck No.HID 7761 was going from Barmana towards Joginder Nagar side. This truck was being driven by Chaman Lal, PW/3. Complainant, Hari Krishan, PW/10 was the conductor in the truck. PW/1 Sher Singh was travelling in the truck. It appears that at Khalyar near Mandi, two Maruti vans bearing registration Nos.HP-02- 0553 and HIE 1050 were coming from the opposite side. Even as per the prosecution version, when the truck was negotiating a curve, van No.HIE 1050 struck against the truck. This van was being driven by Jiwan Parkash, accused. 3. In fact, Jiwan Parkash accompanied by Lalit Kumar and Ved Vayas came to the police post, Drang and lodged a report Ext.PW13/A at 12.30 (mid night) on the night intervening 2.3.1991 and 3.3.1991 to the effect that when he was driving van No.HIE 1050, a truck bearing registration No.HID 7761 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the van as a result of which the door of the van got damaged and the side of the …3… van was scratched. Both the vans were turned around and chased the truck. Signals were given to the truck driver to stop the truck but he fled away in the truck at a high speed towards Drang. The owners of the vans however, managed to overtake the truck near Bhatog (Drang) where the truck had hit a rain shelter and three pillars of the rain shelter had broken. The front wind screen of the truck was also broken. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR was lodged and thereafter, the Investigating Officer, PW/13 went to the spot to investigate the matter. 4. According to Harsingh Dev, PW/13 when he reached the spot, he found that a truck No.HID 7761 had struck against the rain shelter and its wind screen was broken. Three stones were found lying inside near the seat of the driver. The Investigating Officer asked the original complainant Jiwan Parkash about the whereabouts of the truck driver but he could not give any satisfactory reply. Next morning at about 7.00 a.m., Chaman Lal, driver of the truck was found in a field in an unconscious condition. He was brought to the road side and taken to the Hospital at Mandi. The other occupants of the truck were Sher Singh and Hari Krishan, conductors …4… of the truck in question. Sher Singh was injured while Hari Singh was not having any injury on his person. Chaman Lal was admitted in the hospital in an unconscious condition. Statement of Hari Krishan was recorded under Section 154, Cr.P.C (Ext.PW8/A) on the basis of which, fresh FIR, Ext.PW8/B was registered against the original complainant and his companions. 5. PW/10 has not supported the prosecution case at all and has turned hostile. According to him, when they crossed the two Maruti taxies, the persons sitting in the second taxi asked the driver of the truck to stop the vehicle. The truck was not stopped and proceeded ahead. When they reached near the rain shelter at Drang, they found boulders lying on the road. There were some persons standing near the road side who were throwing boulders on the road. This witness was declared hostile. He stuck to his version in Court and denied that the accused were the persons who had attacked the persons sitting in the truck or damaged the truck. 6. PW/1 Sher Singh stated that when they were crossing the vans despite dipping of the head lights by the driver of the truck, the drivers of the vans did not dip their lights and Van No.HIE 1050 struck against the truck. …5… Thereafter, both the vans turned around and chased the truck. Near Bijni, one van came to the right side of the truck and other was brought to the left side of the truck. Thereafter, the van which was on the left side was taken to the front of the truck. As a result thereof, the truck had to stop and 2-3 persons got down from the van which was on the right side of the truck and boarded the truck. They broke the window panes of the truck and started pulling out the driver. The truck was still in motion and when they reached near Tandu, some stones which were collected by the occupants of the other van on the road were thrown on the truck and the front glass of the truck was broken. According to this witness, near Drang, the road had been blocked by placing drums and Rehris of vegetables on the road and accused Jiwan Parkash threw stones at the truck. One of the stones hit the driver Chaman Lal on his eye and he lost control over the truck. The truck hit the rain shelter and stopped there. Thereafter, all the three persons jumped out of the truck and they were beaten by the accused persons. According to this witness, other than the accused persons, many other persons who were present at the spot also beat them. The whole night these people kept …6… sitting in the Khud as they were scared for their lives. In cross-examination, PW/1 admitted that it was at Khalyar where the van and truck struck against each other. The distance between Khalyar and Tandu is about 5 kms. This witness also admitted that while proceeding from Mandi, the rain shelter is on the extreme right side of the road. 7. PW/3 Chaman Lal is the driver of the truck in question and his version is similar to that of PW/1. However, according to this witness, two vans came from the opposite side near Khalyar. He used the dipper to signal the vans to stop and permit him to cross the culvert but the vans were parked by their drivers just in front of the truck. Then 3-4 persons came out of the vans and started abusing the occupants of the truck. Then this witness drove the truck towards Bijni where they wanted to take meals. At Bijni, none of the hotels were open and they proceeded towards Drang. By that time, both the vans had already reached Drang and stones had been kept on the road. Statements of PW/1 and PW/3 are totally inconsistent. According to PW/1, both the vans chased the truck. During the chase, stones were also pelted on the truck and the truck was forced to stop. Some of the accused persons managed to stop the truck …7… when the truck was in motion but the version of the driver is totally different. Whereas according to PW/1 and as well as the initial report lodged with the police, some damage did take place to the van, according to the driver, the truck and the van did not strike against each other. It is obvious that both these witnesses are telling lies. 8. The defence version is much more probable in view of the inconsistencies in the statements of PW/1 and PW/3 who are the only witnesses who supported the prosecution. It is more than apparent that after the truck hit the van near Khalyar, a signal was given to PW/3 to stop the truck but when he did not stop the truck, he was chased by the occupants of the van. The version of PW/3 that at Drang, there was a barrier laid by the occupants of the van does not appear to be correct. The distance between the place where the truck and the van allegedly struck against each other and Drang is at least 10-12 Kms. It is, therefore, obvious that the truck driver was driving the truck at a high speed to escape from the persons who were following him. It is also admitted by PW/1 that the truck did strike against the rain shelter though according to him, the truck struck against the rain …8… shelter after the driver was hit by a stone and he lost control over the truck. However, PW/3 does not say so. According to PW/2, the truck only hit the rain shelter slightly. The possibility of the driver having suffered the serious injuries when the truck hit the rain shelter cannot be ruled out. It may be true that a fight may have ensued between the occupants of the van and the occupants of the truck in which the occupants of the truck, especially PW/3 suffered more serious injuries but to make out a case against the accused, it was the duty of the prosecution to come out with the true facts and the original genesis of the fight should not have been hidden from the Court. The versions given by PW/1, PW/3 and PW/10 are totally inconsistent to each other. The learned Trial Court was, therefore, justified in holding that in view of these inconsistencies in the versions of the aforesaid witnesses, the accused were entitled to be acquitted. 9. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail …9… bonds, if any furnished, by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 28th April, 2010 (Rajiv Sharma) (m) Judge