SIRAT SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pw-3, Ratku Ram (complainant), in his statement recoded under S. 154 CrPC, alleged that on 26.2.2010, he and his wife, Bhimi Devi (PW-8) alongwith other labourers were engaged by contractor Roshan Lal, for laying lintel of Maharani Flour Mills at Jia. Complainant Ratku Ram (PW-3) and Bhimi Devi (PW-8) alongwith other labourers were carrying sand stacked near the wall, when at about 4.50 pm, the wall suddenly collapsed, as a result of which, bricks of wall fell on left foot of complainant and shoulder of Bhimi Devi. Subsequently, it transpired that one jeep bearing registration No. HP-63A-0838 being driven by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused'), hit the wall, as a result of which, wall collapsed and bricks fell on complainant Ratku Ram and his wife Bhimi Devi. Allegedly, the accused while reversing the vehicle, hit the wall. Complainant and his wife were rushed by the accused to the private hospital at Shamshi, for their treatment. Complainant alleged that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of accused. On the aforesaid statement having been made by the complainant, a formal FIR No. 65/10 dated 27.2.2010 Ext. PW-9/A was registered against the accused. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law i.e. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to the accused, for having committed offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence led on record by prosecution, held accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 IPC and convicted and sentenced accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen months for the commission of offence punishable under S. 279 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the commission of offence punishable under S. 337 IPC and; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the commission of offence punishable under S. 338 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal under S. 374 CrPC, before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, who vide judgment dated 25.5.2018, while partly allowing the appeal having been filed by the accused, set aside the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under S. 279 IPC but maintained the conviction recorded against accused under Ss. 337 and 338 IPC. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside judgment of conviction recorded by learned first appellate Court under Ss. 337 and 338 IPC.

(2.) Mr. Abhishek Raj, learned counsel representing the accused vehemently argued that impugned judgment of conviction recoded by learned first appellate Court under Ss. 337 and 338 IPC, is not sustainable in law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Mr. Abhishek strenuously argued that there is no cogent and convincing evidence led on record by prosecution to prove rash and negligent act, if any, done by the accused, while reversing the jeep in question. Mr. Abhishek further contended that none of the prosecution witnesses stated anything specific with regard to rash and negligent driving of accused and as such, learned Court below has wrongly arrived at a conclusion that prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the accused at the time of alleged accident. While placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by this court in Cr. Appeal No. 84 of 2018 titled State of H.P. versus Surinder, decided on 1.5.2018, Mr. Abhishek contended that there can not be any presumption of rashness or negligence, rather onus is always upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently. While inviting attention of this court to the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Ratku Ram (PW-3), Mehar Chand (PW-6) and Bhimi Devi (PW-8), Mr. Abhishek made serious attempt to persuade this court to agree with his contention that none of the prosecution witnesses stated that complainant and his wife, Bhimi Devi (PW-8) suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent act, if any, of the accused. He further contended that aforesaid material prosecution witnesses rather turned hostile and nowhere supported the prosecution case, but despite that learned Courts below merely on the presumptions, proceeded to hold accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 337 and 338 IPC.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting aforesaid contentions having been made by the learned counsel representing the accused, contended that impugned judgment of conviction recoded by learned first appellate Court is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same as such, there is no scope of interference especially when it clearly emerges from the bare reading of impugned judgment of conviction that the learned Court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously. He further contended that it stands duly proved on record that accused while reversing the jeep, miserably failed to take precaution so as to prevent danger, if any, to human life, as such, he rightly came to be convicted for having committed offences punishable under Ss. 337 and 338 IPC. Mr. Thakur further contended that if statements of prosecution witnesses, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 are read in conjunction, same clearly suggest that all these prosecution witnesses in one voice stated that the vehicle in question was being driven rashly and negligently by the accused at the relevant time, as a consequence of which, PW-3(complainant) and PW-8, Bhimi Devi, wife of complainant, suffered simple as well as grievous injuries.