Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sonu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P - Respondent
Cr. Revision No.61 of 2013
Decided on : 20-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General.

The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the inapplicability of probation for serious traffic offences.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, and 304(A) - Motor vehicle accident resulting in death and injuries - Accused driving vehicle at high speed on the wrong side of the road - Conviction upheld based on eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence - Sentences confirmed with the reduction of the sentence under Section 304(A) from two years to one year. (Paras 6, 7, 58)

(B) Eyewitness Testimony - The court emphasized the reliability of eyewitness accounts, despite the witnesses being friends of the deceased, distinguishing between 'interested' and 'related' witnesses - Their consistent identification of the accused as the driver was deemed credible. (Paras 29, 30)

(C) Negligence - The court clarified that the standard for negligence is based on the driver's obligation to adhere to traffic regulations, specifically driving on the correct side of the road, which the accused failed to do. (Paras 46, 48)

(D) Probation of Offenders Act - The court reaffirmed that the benefit of probation is not applicable for serious offences like rash and negligent driving resulting in death. (Paras 59, 63)

Facts of the case:
The revision was filed against the conviction of the accused for causing an accident resulting in the death of Punita and injuries to others. The accident occurred when the accused drove a vehicle at high speed on the wrong side of the road, hitting the victims. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court, emphasizing the negligence of the accused in driving. (Paras 7, 60)

Issues: The primary issues were the identification of the accused as the driver and whether the witnesses were biased due to their relationship with the victims. (Paras 8, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that eyewitness testimony is reliable, and the accused's actions constituted negligence under traffic laws, justifying the conviction. The court also highlighted the importance of deterrence in sentencing for road safety. (Paras 29, 46, 59)

Result: Revision dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Appellate Court) vide which the appeal filed by the revisionist/appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was partly allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter referred to in the same manner in which they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that Manju (PW2), her friends Somi Devi (Not examined), Rekha Devi, Meenu Sharma & Punita had gone to Government High School, Puruwala for appearing in Science Practical Examination on 24.02.2006. They returned to their home at about 12:00 Noon after the practical. When they reached Shaheed Smark, Surajpur, a vehicle bearing registration no. HP- 01S-0190 came from the opposite side at a high speed towards the wrong side. The vehicle hit the girls. Rekha Kumari, Meenu Sharma, Somi Devi and Punita Kumari sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital for treatment in the same vehicle. The accident occurred due to the high speed and driving the vehicle towards the wrong side of the road. The intimation was given to the police regarding the accident and entry (Ext. PW4/A) was recorded in the daily diary. ASI-Joginder Singh (PW11) went to the spot for verification of the information. He recorded the statement of Manju (Ext. PW2/A) which was sent to the Police Station where FIR (Ext. PW11/B) was registered. He filed an application (Ext. PW11/D) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Vijay Vohra (PW7) conducted the medical examination of Rekha and found that she had suffered a simple injury which could have been caused within 24 hours of examination. He issued MLC (Ext. PW7/A). He examined Meenu and found that she had suffered a simple injury which could have been caused within 24 hours of examination. He issued MLC (Ext. PW7/B). He also examined Somi Devi and found that she had suffered a simple injury which could have been caused within 24 hours of examination. He issued the MLC (PW7/C). HC-Jaswant Singh (PW12) was deputed to the spot to carry out the investigation as per the entry (PW11/A). ASI-Joginder Singh (PW11) handed over the case file to HC-Jaswant Singh for further investigation. HCJaswant Singh visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext. PW12/A). Gulsher Ahmed (PW9) took the spot photographs (Ext. P1 to P7) and their negatives (Ext. P8 to P14). These photographs were handed over to HC-Jaswant Singh. Punita died in the accident. HC-Jaswant Singh filed an application (Ext. PW12/B) for the post-mortem examination of Punita. He prepared the inquest report (Ext. PW12/C). Dr Kamal Pasha (PW10) conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Punita and found that she had died due to a head injury and rupture of the spleen. He issued the Post Mortem report (Ext. PW10/A). The injury noticed by him could have been caused by a motor vehicle accident. HCJaswant Singh seized the vehicle along with a document vide memo (Ext. PW8/A). HHC-Subhash Chand conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found that there was no defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. He noticed some damage to the vehicle. He issued the report (Ext. PW5/A). HC-Jaswant Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304(A) of IPC.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. Rekha (PW1), Manju (PW2), and Meenu Sharma (PW3) are the eyewitnesses to the incident. HHC-Amar Singh