HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 473 of 2001 Decided on: 11.12.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Surender Kumar ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Vinod Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 23.3.2001, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story in brief is that on 12.12.1999, at 3.15 p.m., a statement was made to the police by one Ram Chander that he was coming back from Shimla with his family in a ‘Trax’ jeep. He was accompanied by his wife Hardevi and other persons, which jeep was being driven by Mohan Lal. It was alleged that when they reached at a place 10-12 kms. from Sarahan towards Nahan, a truck (number mentioned) came from other side and struck against the right wide of the Trax jeep and his wife Hardevi sitting on the window side _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - suffered injuries. The occurrence took place at 1.45 p.m. His wife was taken to the District Hospital but she died on way. It was alleged that the accident took place due to the rash or negligent driving of the respondent i.e. the truck driver and accordingly, on this report, a case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court who tried the respondent leading to his acquittal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution consisting of 11 witnesses, it is clear that the first point to be considered is the manner in which the accident took place, before the respondent can be held guilty for the offence with which he was charged. It is clear from a perusal of the statement of PW-4 Ram Chander, informant and husband of the deceased, PW-5 Bhole Pal Singh, son of PW-4 Ram Chander, PW-6 Nirmala Devi, daughter-in-law of PW-4 Ram Chander and PW-7 Mohan Lal, the driver of the Trax jeep in which the deceased and other occupants were sitting that no part of the vehicle i.e. Trax jeep was damaged in this accident. PW-4 Ram Chander, complainant, has stated that the truck came from the other side and hit their Trax jeep. In cross examination, he has stated that he was sitting on the front seat alongwith a child while his wife and other persons were sitting on the rear portion of the jeep. He admitted that he looked towards the backside after hearing the noise of striking. He has stated that no part of the jeep was damaged and there was no glass on the back side of the vehicle. He admitted that the deceased Hardevi was sitting in the last in the vehicle and at the spot there was a turning. PW-5 Bhole Pal Singh also stated that the truck came and struck with their Trax jeep. He further stated that the respondent was driving the vehicle - 3 - rashly or negligently. In cross examination, he has admitted that no part of the Trax jeep was damaged, though denied that at the spot there was a turning. He also admitted that his mother was sitting on the backside of the driver seat and there was no glass on the backside. PW-6 Nirmala Devi also stated similarly. PW-7 Mohan Lal, the driver of the Trax jeep, has stated that the truck struck with their Trax jeep on the backside resulting in the death of the wife of Ram Chander. He came up with the plea that there was a glass on the backside which was also broken but this fact was denied by all the other witnesses. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that it was suggested to all these witnesses that while the two vehicles were crossing, the deceased felt the need to vomit and she had taken out her head and her head struck with the truck being driven by the respondent. It is also clear from a perusal of the evidence that the deceased had suffered injuries on her head, mouth and forehead which give credence to the plea taken by the defence in cross examination of these witnesses. In case the back portion of the truck being driven by the respondent had struck with the Trax jeep, there was every possibility of damage or scratches to the Trax jeep also or injuries to the other occupants of the Trax jeep, which is not there. Therefore, it leads to the inference that the learned trial Court had rightly drawn the conclusion that the deceased may have taken her head out of the Jeep with the need to vomit and it struck with the back portion of the truck being driven by the respondent. A perusal of the statement of Mechanic PW-10 Deep Singh shows that there was no mechanical defect in both the vehicles and he clearly stated that in the Trax jeep on the driver side in the back window, there was not even a scratch, though the other witnesses have denied that there was any window. - 4 - Therefore, it is clear that on the back portion of the Trax jeep, there was no damage to the vehicle even to the extent of a scratch. PW-11 HC Kundan Singh has also admitted that on the back side of the driver in the vehicle there were signs of vomiting which clearly gives credence to the plea set up in the defence by the respondent and rather it stands substantiated. There appears to be no other manner of the accident except the fact that the deceased may have taken her head out and accordingly she suffered injuries, while no damage was caused to the vehicle in which they were traveling or to the truck being driven by the respondent or any injuries suffered by any of the other occupants of the Trax jeep, who were 8 in number as per evidence on record. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record that the prosecution have failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. December 11, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.