Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol, J.
Jagdev Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2015
Decided On : 05-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant :Mr. B. S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, for the appellant-accused
For the respondent:Mr. R. S. Verma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondent-State
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, especially in cases involving serious offences. The judgment also emphasizes the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charged offences, particularly in cases where graver punishments are involved.
Headnote:
Intoxication - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-AA) and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Section 185) - The judgment discusses the provisions of Sections 304-AA of the Indian Penal Code and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in relation to the accused's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol and causing an accident resulting in injuries and death. The court examines the legal definition of 'intoxication' and the requirement for scientific evidence to prove the accused's state of intoxication. The judgment highlights the necessity of clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt and the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charged offences.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol and causing an accident resulting in injuries and death. The court found that the prosecution evidence did not conclusively establish the accused's state of intoxication beyond reasonable doubt. The scientific evidence presented by the prosecution was found to be lacking in terms of proper handling and documentation, leading to doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the findings and the impugned judgment were not based on correct and complete appreciation of evidence, causing prejudice to the accused and resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court also noted the absence of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the accused's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the establishment of the accused's state of intoxication at the time of the accident and the sufficiency of the scientific evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the charged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, especially in cases involving serious offences. It also highlighted the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charged offences, particularly in cases where graver punishments are involved.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the accused's conviction and sentence under Sections 304-AA IPC and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act were set aside. The accused was acquitted of these offences, and if not required in relation to any other offences or case, he was to be released from jail, and any deposited fine was to be refunded to him. The accused was, however, required to serve the sentence for the remaining convicted offences.
Sanjay Karol, J.
In connection with F.I.R. No. 65 of 2009, dated 12.6.2009 (Ext. PW-13/A), registered at Police Station Jhakari, Distt. Shimla, accused was charged to face trial for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-AA of the Indian Penal Code and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In terms of the impugned judgment dated 8.4.2015/9.4.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 010003 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jagdev Singh, appellant-accused stands convicted of all the charged offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.5000/- for offence punishable under the provisions of Section 304-AA IPC and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year; simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for each of the offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC; and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under the provisions of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. Present appeal stands filed by the appellant-accused under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Appellant lays challenge to his conviction only under the provisions of Sections 304-AA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), on the ground that prosecution has not been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that at the time of occurrence of the accident, he was driving the vehicle in question under the influence of alcohol.
3. In view of limited challenge, one need not, in detail, discuss the prosecution evidence, save and except that through the testimonies of Pravesh Kumar (PW-1), Surinder Negi (PW-4), Vikas Prashar (PW-14) and Jyoti Prakash (PW-15) it stands established on record that on 12.6.2009 accused was driving Maxi Cab bearing registration number HP-02-1683, which on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused, met with an accident. The vehicle was not found to be mechanically defective.
4. Allegedly at the time of occurrence of the incident, accused was under the influence of alcohol and as such could not negotiate the curve, resulting into the vehicle rolling down into the gorge by about 200 – 250 mts.
5. As a result of the accident, passengers Surinder Negi, Vikas Prashar, Jyoti Prakash and Pravesh Kumar sustained injuries and another passenger i.e. Vipin Chander died. Through the testimonies of the passengers and Dr. Vivek Anand (PW-6) who proved on record MLC’s (Ext. PW-6/B to Ext. PW-6/F) as also Dr. Mani Ram (PW-7) who proved on record the post mortem report (Ext. PW-7/C), such fact stands proved.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that findings as also the impugned judgment, to the extent of its challenge, are not based on correct and complete appreciation of evidence and material placed on record, causing prejudice to the accused as also having resulted into miscarriage of justice.
7. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another Versus State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, the apex Court, has held that:
“…….Lord Russel delivering the judgment of the Board pointed out that there was "no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction on the High Court in the exercise of its powers as an appellate Tribunal", that no distinction was drawn "between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction", and that "no limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code".….…. (Emphasis supplied)
8. The apex Court in Lal Mandi v. State of W.B.
