Dismissed

State v. Pradeep Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC5 May 2015CR.A/147/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's challenge against a trial Court judgment. The trial Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and convicted him only under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court held no case for interference as the judgment was not perverse or a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Present appeal dismissed; pending applications dismissed; bail bonds discharged; trial Court record sent back.

State Vs Pradeep Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 147 of 2006 Judgment reserved on: 09.04.2015 Date of Decision: May 5, 2015

¶3

State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Pardeep Kumar ...Respondent.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ . No. For the Appellant: Mr. R.S. Verma, Additional Advocate General, for the appellant-State. For the Respondent: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶6

Sanjay Karol, J (oral).

¶7

Assailing the judgment dated

¶8

17.12.2005/22.12.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, H.P., in Case No.191/2 of 2004, titled as State of H.P. Versus Pardeep Kumar, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶9

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

In relation to FIR No.103/04, dated 09.05.2004, registered at Police Station, East Shimla, accused was sent to face trial for offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 337 of IPC read with Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

¶12

As per prosecution case, on 09.05.2004 at about 7.30 PM, accused Pardeep Kumar, under the influence of liquor was driving his Maruti Van, bearing No. HP06-2662, in a rash and negligent manner. First he hit an old lady and thereafter collided with car bearing No.HP03A-1537 belonging to complainant Vishal Sood (PW.1). Investigation was conducted by SI K.D. Khan (PW.8). Injured Seema Sood (PW.6) was got medically examined at IGMC Hospital, Shimla. Also accused was got medically examined. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

¶13

Notice of accusation was put to the accused for commission of offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act), to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

¶14

¶15

In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up the defence that witnesses have deposed falsely to get the claim. In defence accused also examined two witnesses.

¶16

Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused, in relation to offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279 and 337 IPC, but however convicted him for commission of offence punishable under the provisions of Section 185 of the M.V. Act and sentenced him to pay fine amounting to `700/-. Also in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Accused has not assailed the judgment with respect to his conviction and sentence under the provisions of the M.V. Act.

¶17

Having heard Mr. R.S. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Ms. Vandana Misra, learned counsel, on behalf of the accused and having minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution, I am

¶18

¶19

of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. The judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

¶20

It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence.

¶21

In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36, Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under:

¶22

“(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in – ‘Sheo Swarup v. Emperor’, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words:

¶23

¶24

“Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice.” ”

¶25

The only issue which needs to be considered is as to whether the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or not. According to Vishal Sood (PW.1) and Sunder Singh (PW.4), accused was driving his vehicle on a wrong side, which in fact, was the cause of accident. However, site plan (Ex.PW.8/A), so prepared by the Investigating Officer on the spot, does not indicate factual position to be so. The vehicle is not extensively damaged as is evident from photographs (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15). What is important is

¶26

¶27

that the width of the road where accident took place is 11.5 feet and the spot as indicated in the site plan, correctness of which is not in dispute, reveals that accused was not driving his vehicle on the wrong side. The witnesses, more particularly Seema Sood (PW.6), admits that at the time of accident, it was almost dark. Also she could not state with certainty as to whether she sustained injuries as a result of fall or being struck with the vehicle. Version of Vishal Sood (PW.1) and Sunder Singh (PW.4), that accused hit a lady with the vehicle, thus, cannot be said to have been corroborated by the injured person. Hence it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt.

¶28

Court does not find prosecution to have proved its case, beyond reasonable doubt, that accused was driving his vehicle on public highway in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing simple injuries to Seema Sood, by leading clear, cogent, convincing piece of evidence.

¶29

The Court below, in my considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal,

¶30

¶31

erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice.

¶32

The accused person has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, since it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case.

¶33

For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.

¶34

(Sanjay Karol), Judge.

State v. Pradeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Pradeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Devi Vs State of Hp

New India Assurance Company Vs Veena Devi

Ram Pal Vs State Civil Supplies corp.

State Vs Nand Lal

Rajesh Kumar Vs Hrtc

Lac Vs Surtia