State of H.P. vs Kuldeep Kumar

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 27.9.2005, vide which he accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a report was lodged with the police and challan under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. was filed as against the respondent, who was tried by the learned trial Court and was convicted and sentenced as under:--

u/s 279 I.P.C.:

Simple imprisonment for a period of 5 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

u/s 337 I.P.C.:

Simple imprisonment for a period of 5 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

An appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who assigned the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned judgment dated 27.9.2005 accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the respondent.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 5.9.2003 complainant Kulvinder Rana was going towards P.W.D. Office Thural from Kachhal Jagian in his Maruti Car bearing No. HP-56-3777 alongwith two other persons and the vehicle was being driven by Hans Raj. A bus came from the opposite side and collided with the Car, which was pushed back around 10-12 feet. A complaint was lodged that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus No. HP-56-3265 by the respondent.

The learned trial Court has referred to the testimony of the witnesses and has concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus by the respondent. The learned Additional session Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that though the prosecution has examined the occupants of the Car including the complainant, but has observed that both the witnesses are interested and related to each other and no independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused/respondent.

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of hearing that one independent witness namely, Kalyan Chand, BDC Member, was present there, who had reported the incident to the police, but was not examined by the prosecution.

A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court also shows that it has come up in the testimony of PW-6 Surinder Kumar, photographer, that no dent was found on the bus, which has allegedly struck with the Car. The plea taken by the accused was that the bus had not hit the Car in question but the Car had hit with the boulder and the dent was there in the Car. This fact has not been corroborated by the prosecution evidence. Since no dent was found on the bus, which had allegedly struck with the complainant''s Car, this, therefore, negatives the plea taken by the complainant that the bus had hit his Car and his Car was damaged.

Keeping in view the above findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding the respondent not guilty, cannot be said to be perverse in any manner, calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. Fine if deposited, be refunded to the respondent after two months. A copy of this judgment be sent to both the Courts below along with records.