Dismissed

State v. Balwinder Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jul 2017CR.A/196/2008

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 to the lower appellate court's acquittal of the accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the conflicting evidence and the possibility of alternative views. The impugned judgment was found well-reasoned with no legal infirmity.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent was upheld.

State Vs Balwinder Singh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Appeal No.196 of 2008. Reserved on : 27.6.2017. Decided on : 17^th July, 2017.

¶3

State of Himachal Pradesh

¶4

.......Appellant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Balwinder Singh ……Respondent.

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶9

For the appellant : Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Dy. Advocate

¶10

General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

¶11

For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Kishore Pundir, Advocate.

¶12

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.

¶13

Assailing the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2007,

¶14

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, (H.P), in Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2005, whereby accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶15

The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 15.1.2000, ASI Avtar Singh (PW-13) alongwith LHC Udham Singh, HHG Kailash Chand and HHG Dharampal was on VIP duty at Mubarakpur Chowk, wherein a private tempo driver gave an information that a police jeep had met with an accident near Thakur Dhaba. On this information, ASI Avtar Singh (PW-13) alongwith

¶16

LHC Udham Singh went to Primary Health Centre, Amb, where HC Vijay

¶17

Kumar (PW-1) got his statement under Section 154 of the Code of

¶18

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶19

¶20

Criminal Procedure, alleging that on 15.1.2000, he alongwith HC Mehar Singh (PW-2) was going to Police Station, Amb from Bus Stand Amb, they met a Government jeep bearing No.HP-20-0478 coming from the side of Police Station Amb, which was being driven by Constable Harbans Lal (PW-6) and Inspector Kailash Walia (PW-15) sitting on the front seat of jeep. They started towards Bharwain and also went on clearing the traffic obstruction in the way, when they reached near Thakur Dhaba around 12:30 in the noon, Punjab Roadways bus bearing No.PB-06B3506, on its route from Chintpurni to Batala came from the side of Chintpurni, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver on the wrong side of the road. Constable Harbans Lal (PW-6) driver of the jeep had taken the jeep on the ‘kacha’ road, but driver of the Punjab Roadways bus, in a very rash and negligent manner dragged the jeep about 10 to 12 feet, as a result of which, four of the occupants of the jeep, namely, Harbans Lal, Surinder Kumar, Anita Devi and Mehar Singh, sustained grievous injuries, whereas HC Vijay Kumar and Kailash Chand Walia, sustained simple injuries. The vehicles in question were taken into possession by the police and photographs of the spot were prepared. Police thoroughly investigated the matter and after conclusion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.

¶21

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as

¶22

many as sixteen witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has

¶23

¶24

denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused.

¶25

Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of

¶26

the appellant has argued that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, after accepting the appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is required to be interfered with, as the learned Sessions Judge, has not applied it’s mind to the evidence, facts and documents of the present case and just on the basis of surmises and conjectures, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. He has further argued that the learned lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the spot map and other documents, which have come on record alongwith statement of witnesses correctly.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the learned lower Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence, which has come on record correctly and as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, the accused required to be acquitted and is rightly acquitted.

¶28

To appreciate the arguments of learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the accused, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses.

¶29

¶30

PW-1 HC Vijay Kumar, has deposed that on 15.1.2000, he alongwith HC Mehar Singh had boarded the jeep near Amb Chowk, being driven by Harbans Lal (PW-6). Inspector Kailash Walia (PW-15) LC Anita Kumari (PW-3) and Constable Surinder Kumar (PW-4), were also travelling in the said jeep. He has further deposed that when they reached near Thakur Dhaba, ahead of Bombay Picnic spot, around 12:30 PM, Punjab Roadways bus, on its route from Chintpurni to Batala, came

¶31

in a high speed and on the wrong side of the road. The driver of the jeep took the jeep on ‘kacha’ portion, but driver of the bus struck the bus against the jeep, on the wrong side of the road, as a result of which, occupants of the jeep sustained injuries. The injured were shifted to Primary Health Centre, Amb, in a tempo. In his cross-examination, he has denied that the jeep driver was in a high speed. He has further denied that the jeep driver could not control the jeep, as a result of puncture of the front tyre of the jeep and struck against the bus, which was coming from the opposite direction. The other occupants of jeep Mehar Singh (PW-2), LC Anita (PW-3), Constable Surinder (PW-4), HC Harbans Lal (PW-6) and Inspector Kailash Walia (PW-15), also supported the version of HC Vijay Kumar (PW-1). They were also cross-examined at length, but nothing could be elicited in their testimony. PW-5 Karnail Singh, has deposed that there was a collusion between Punjab Roadways

¶32

bus coming from Chintpurni side and Police jeep going towards Chintpurni side. The bus was in a high speed and struck against the jeep

¶33

¶34

on the wrong side of the road. The jeep was in a slow speed. He has also deposed that he had not seen the bus driver at that time. He has failed to support the suggestion that jeep became out of control, as a result of puncture of tyre and struck with the bus. PW-8 Gurcharan Singh, has deposed that on the date of accident, accused was driving the bus. PW-9 Balwant Singh, mechanic, who had mechanically examined the accidental vehicles, vide report Ex.PW9/A. No doubt, it is stated in

¶35

the mechanical report that front tyre of the accidental jeep was punctured. PW-11 Rangila Ram, Radiographer, who conducted x-ray examination of Anita Kumari (PW-3) and Kailash Walia (PW-15). PW-12 ASI Prem Chand, proved on record appointment letter of the accused and duty slip Ex.PW8/G. PW-14 Jaswant Singh, witness of the recovery memo Ex.PW8/F, vide which, driving licence, duty roster, appointment letter and route permit of the bus were taken into possession. PW-16 HC Mehar Singh, registered the case FIR Ex.PW16/A.

¶36

From the above, it is clear that the report of mechanic, who appeared in the witness box as PW-9 shows that the steering system of the jeep bearing No.HP-20-0478 was found unfunctional. The brake system was also not in a proper condition. The driver side front tyre of the jeep was found punctured. The entire body of the jeep was totally damaged. The steering system of the bus bearing No.PB-06B3506 was in a proper condition and the brake pressure was nil. The light rim and the body show of the bus was found to have been broken, which

¶37

¶38

shows that the cause of accident mainly bursting of the tyre of jeep, which has come on record that jeep was being driven in a high speed. PW-6, who was driving a jeep, has admitted in his cross-examination that in case of sudden bursting of the driver side tyre of the vehicle, the vehicles goes out of control. The other facts, which have come on record is with respect to the bus being driven in the middle of the road, which is depicting in the photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, but from these photographs, it is also clear that there was sufficient space to jeep for crossing. It cannot be said that jeep could not have crossed from the left hand side. One of the photographs also shows that bus is shown on the left side of the road involved in the accident. The independent witness Jamaldin (PW-7) has not supported the prosecution case and the statement of police witnesses are also not inspiring confidence, in view of the report of Balwant Singh, mechanic (PW-9), Ex.PW9/A and the statement of PW-6. So, this Court finds that it will not be appropriate to set aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

¶39

9. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan

¶40

(2008) 1 SCC 258, that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse,

¶41

¶42

nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified.

¶43

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs.

¶44

State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401, has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶46

Court and discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Record of the learned trial Court

¶47

be sent back forthwith.

¶48

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) 17^th July, 2017 Judge (CS)

State v. Balwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Balwinder Singh

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

State Vs Rajinder Pal

Sanjeev Sharma Vs Ranjot Singh

Rakesh Tanta Vs State of Hp

Shashi Kumar Vs Sunka Ram

State Vs Sunil Dutt

Kunal Ranawat Vs Rativa Jahan Ranawat