AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop Chitkara, J
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:
FIR Number
No.104 dated 11.03.2002, registered under Sections 279, 337 and 308 of IPC, in Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P
Trial Court Case Number
No.441-I/2002, decided by learned ACJM, Sundernagar, District Mandi, vide judgment dated 12.01.2007 and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence, with default clause.
Cr. Appeal Number
No.6 of 2007, decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, vide judgment dated 25.10.2008.
Challenging the acceptance of appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, overturning the conviction of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, the State came up before this Court by filing the present appeal.
On 11.03.2002, on receipt of telephonic information, the investigator visited Sub Divisional Hospital at Sundernagar and recorded the statement of Bhup Singh (PW-1) under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, FIR captioned above has been registered. The informant told the investigator that when he was walking on the road on his left side, then a motorcycle came from the behind and hit him at his back and because of the impact, he received injuries on his leg. After that people brought him to Sub Divisional Hospital, Sundernagar in a taxi. He further informed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle, Trigun Rakesh Kumar (accused). The said information was reduced into writing vide Memo, Ex.PW-1/A.
The investigator obtained MLC, Ex. PW-4/A, of the injured. As per MLC, the doctors noticed fracture of legs and hence, the injury was declared as grievous. The investigator had taken into possession the motorcycle and obtained its mechanical report, Ex.PW-5/A. The investigator also prepared the spot map, Ex.PW-6/A, and took photographs of the motorcycle Ex.PW-6/C and Ex.PW-6/D. He also recorded the statements of other witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station launched prosecution against the accused by filing report under Section 173(3) of Cr.P.C.
Learned ACJM issued notice of accusation for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined injured, Bhup Singh as PW-1, and doctors as PWs 3 and 4.
The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C admitted that his motorcycle struck against the injured. However, he denied that he was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. He also stated that he had informed the police. In answer to the last question, the accused offered an explanation that the accident had taken place due to the impact of injured, who was crossing the road, as such, the bike struck against him.
I have heard Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, and Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Advocate for the accused-respondent, and have gone through the record with utmost care.
The injured testified as PW-1. He has stated that motorcycle, which was coming from the back side struck against him. He stated that motorcycle was being drivern in a high speed. In cross-examination, he admitted that the vehicles were parked on both sides of the road. He also admitted that he was in the company of Pawan Kumar, who was his sister's husband. He denied that he was crossing the road and on seeing the motorcycle, he started moving in reverse direction and became perplex, due to which accident took place. He specifically stated that the accident had taken place in the Kachha portion of the road.
The investigator had prepared the spot map, Ex.PW-6/B. In the spot map, the spot of accident is mentioned as 'B' and perusal of the same reveals that the spot 'B' is not on the Kachha portion of the road, but is almost in the 1/4th portion of the Pucca road.
The prosecution examined investigator as PW-7. He proved the spot map and tendered the same in evidence.
The prosecution also examined Tilak Raj as PW-2. He testified that when they had reached near Gupta Clinic, then a motorcycle hit Bhup Singh from back side, due to which, he fell at a distance of ten feet and suffered injuries on his leg. He denied that accident had taken place due to the mistake of Bhup Singh. He also denied that Bhup Singh was suddenly crossing the road and on seeing the motorcycle, he became perplex and started walking in a reverse direction, which led to the accident.
Prosecution also examined PW-8 Pawan Kumar as an independent witness. He testified that he was walking on the said of the road and in front of his eyes, one motorcycle hit Bhup Singh. After that he alongwith Tilak Raj carried the injured to the hospital. In his examination-in-chief, he explicitly stated that at whose fault the accident had taken place.
An analysis of the above said evidence reveals that the injured made a false statement that accident took place when he was in the Kachha portion of the road. There is no corroboration of said testimony in the versions of PW-2, Tilak Raj and PW-8 Pawan Kumar. Furthermore, the spot map, Ex.PW-6/B, contradicts the said stand. As per which, the accident had taken place in the Pucca portion of the road and it was at a distance of 25% from the edge of the road.
Given the contradictory statement of the injured, the version of the accused that it was the injured who was crossing the road and became perplex, cannot be ruled out.
Furthermore, because of contradictions, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the evidence is not sufficient to arrive at the guilt of the accused.
I have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the accused was convicted, but the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect of the matter. Whereas a reference to the Appellate Court judgment reveals that it is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court.
Given above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.