KRISHANA LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-152
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 20,2013

Krishana Lal Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttaranchal and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) One Krishana Lal lodged a report against the driver of white Maruti Van No. DL8C / 4034 on 16.09.1999 at 11:40 A.M., in police station Kotwali Haridwar in respect of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC. Complainant Krishana Lal wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to the police station, Kotwali enumerating the facts contained therein that on 12.09.1999, at around 10:30 A.M., his father Roshan Lal had gone to attend a marriage ceremony in Sewa Samiti Bhawan, Shravan Nath Nagar, Haridwar and while his father was coming out of Sewa Samiti Bhawan, white Maruti Van bearing registration no. DL8C / 4034 hit him. The driver of said Maruti Van was driving the van rashly and negligently. The van hit Roshan Lal, as a consequence of which, he fell on the ground. Roshan Lal sustained injuries on his head. Witnesses Ramesh and Mahendra tried to intercept the van, but to no avail. Some people, who were present on the place of occurrence, took informant's father to the Government Hospital, where he was admitted, but during treatment the injured died because of serious head injuries sustained by him. Informant Krishana Lal was under bereavement and busy in performing last rites of his father therefore, he could not lodge the FIR between 12.09.1999 and 16.09.1999. In other words, the FIR was delayed by four days.
(2.) After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused Lal Chand under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. His statements were taken, in which he denied the allegations levelled against him. PW1 Ramesh, PW2 Krishana Lal, PW3 Dr. L.A. Rastogi (Sr. Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem on the dead body), PW4 Sunil Kumar and PW5 Yogendra Pal Singh (Investigating Officer) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar did not find accused Lal Chand guilty of the offences complained of against him. He was accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved against the said order dated 15.03.2005, present criminal revision was preferred by the complainant Krishana Lal.
(3.) Let us see and visualise the quality of evidence rendered by the prosecution against the accused. PW1 Ramesh stated on oath that on 12.09.2009, when Roshan Lal was coming out of Sewa Samiti Bhawan, Sravan Nath Nagar, Haridwar, at 10:30 A.M., driver of white Maruti Van bearing registration no. DL8C / 4034, who was driving the van rashly and negligently, hit his father. Roshan Lal fell on the ground. He sustained injuries on his head. PW1, alongwith another, tried to chase the vehicle, but the driver of said vehicle ran away. PW1 said that the vehicle was being driven by accused Lal Chand. The injured was taken to hospital where he died subsequently during treatment. PW1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, PW1 said that he was running a travel agency in his house. Sewa Samiti Bhawan was located at a distance of 60-70 meters from his house. PW1 also went to attend a marriage. He was standing on the road, when he saw the incident. In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he told the Investigating Officer that the driver fled away after committing the offence and he (PW1) could not see the driver of the vehicle. The injured was taken to hospital. PW1 remained in the hospital for 25-30 minutes. The injured died subsequently. PW1 alongwith another chased the vehicle, but could not match with the speed of the van driver. He was not called by the Investigating Officer in the police station. PW1 however said that he showed the place of incident to the Investigating Officer. PW1 knew the deceased prior to this incident. PW1 denied a suggestion that he was having business rivalry of travel agency with the accused and therefore he was telling a lie.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.