Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 310 of 2009
Decided On : 19-03-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala.
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove negligent driving under Section 279 and the causation element for convicting under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Rash and Negligent Driving - Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 304A
Fact of the Case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, who was initially convicted for endangering human life by driving a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the death of a person. The respondent was found driving a jeep in a rash and negligent manner, causing the death of Harbasi Devi.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the respondent under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code for negligent driving but acquitted him under Section 304A due to insufficient evidence linking the accident to the death of the deceased.
Issues: The key issues were the involvement of the respondent in the accident, the credibility of witnesses, and the nexus between the accident and the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the testimony of witnesses, the circumstances of the accident, and the legal requirements for negligent driving under Section 279 and the causation element under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgments, upholding the conviction under Section 279 and acquitting the respondent under Section 304A. It also considered extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the respondent.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the State against acquittal of respondent-Dinesh Kumar vide judgment, dated 31st December, 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2006, whereby conviction and sentence imposed upon respondent-Dinesh Kumar vide judgment/order, dated 24th /26th August, 2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, in Case No. 2731 of 2003, for commission of offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), has been reversed.
2. Respondent-accused was subjected to trial on the notice of accusation under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for endangering human life on public highway on 22nd April, 2003, at about 8.45 a.m. by driving a jeep bearing No. HP193504 in a rash and negligent manner and resultantly, causing death of Harbasi Devi.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record.
4. Crime Investigating Agency was set into motion on a telephonic information received in Police Post, Amb whereupon Investigating Officer PW-9 HC Chaman Lal alongwith Constable Madan Mohan rushed to the Primary Health Center, Amb, where he was informed by Medical Officer that injured Harbasi Devi had been referred to Zonal Hospital, Una, on account of serious injury. After obtaining her MLC Ex. PW-3/A, he went to Zonal Hospital, Una, where PW-1 Satish Kumar made statement, Ex. PW-1/A, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "CrPC") stating therein that on 22nd April, 2003, at about 8.45 a.m. he was present in his shop and at that time, Harbasi Devi, who was crossing the road, was hit by respondent with his jeep/tralla No. HP193504 being driven by him in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Harbasi Devi fell on the road and received injuries on her back, head and other parts of body. He also gave name and address of respondent in his statement further stating that the accident had taken placed on account of high speed and rash act of the driver of the jeep/tralla.
5. On the basis of the said statement, sent as rukka to the Police Station, FIR Ex. PW-9/A was recorded. During investigation, PW-2 Manohar Lal pointed out the spot/place of occurrence and on the basis of the same, site map Ex. PW-9/B was prepared. Photographs of the spot were also taken and statements of witnesses were recorded. Jeep involved in the accident alongwith documents and learner driving licence of respondent Ex. P1 was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-9/F. Later on, on 18th June, 2003, injured-Harbasi Devi expired in the hospital whereafter her post mortem report Ex. PW-7/A was also obtained by the Investigating Officer. On completion of investigation, finding prima facie complicity of respondent in commission of offence, challan was presented in the Court.
6. Prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove its case whereas respondent has not chosen to lead any evidence in defence after recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC.
7. Learned Magistrate had convicted the respondent under Section 279 and 304A IPC whereas learned Sessions Judge, in an appeal preferred by the respondent, has acquitted him. Hence, this appeal.
8. It is pertinent to record herein that initially, case was registered under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, but, later on, on account of death of injured-Harbasi Devi, Section 304A IPC was also added. However, on the basis of material on record, learned Magistrate had put notice of accusation only under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
9. Out of nine prosecution witnesses, PW-9 HC Chaman Lal is the Investigating Officer and PW-1 Satish Kumar is the complainant as well as eye witness, who also happens to be a relative of deceased-Harbasi Devi, having kiosk near the spot of accident. PW-2 Manohar Singh is also a shopkeeper, in front of whose shop, accident had taken place.
10. PW-4 Raghubir Singh was examined as an eye witness to the incident, b
