Appellate court upholds acquittal unless patently perverse or ignores material evidence; trial court's reasonable assessment of unreliable witnesses, vague high speed, and consistent defense version on negligence not disturbed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.08.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Barkat Ali (since deceased), was removing the grass from the drain adjacent to the road on 05.12.2010. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-36A-5408 came from Rani Taal at a high speed and hit the informant at 4:30 PM. The informant fell. Alafdeen (PW5) picked up the informant and carried him to CHC Jawalamukhi. The accused, Sarwan Kumar, was driving the motorcycle. The accident occurred due to his negligence and the high speed of the motorcycle. The matter was reported to the police, and an entry (Ext.PW1/A) was recorded. ASI Kuldeep Kumar (PW1) and HHC Madan Lal were sent to verify the correctness of the information. ASI Kuldeep Kumar (PW1) filed an application (Ext.PW1/B) for obtaining the opinion of the Medical Officer regarding the fitness of the injured to make the statement. The Medical Officer certified that the injured was fit to make the statement. ASI Kuldeep recorded the statement of the informant (Ext.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW1/D) was registered. ASI Ashok Kumar (PW4) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW4/A). He took the photograph of the spot with the help of his mobile phone (Ext.P6). He seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-36A-5408 along with documents vide memo (Ext.PW4/B). The informant died during the investigation. Inquest on the dead body (Ext.PW4/P) was conducted. The postmortem examination of the informant was conducted, and a report (Ext.PW4/H) was issued. The viscera were sent to SFSL Junga, but no poison/alcohol could be detected in them. As per the report of the Medical Officer, the cause of death could not be ascertained; however, the possibility of natural death could not be ruled out. The mechanical examination of the motorcycle was conducted, and no defect was found in it that could have led to the accident. Report (Ext.PW4/M) was issued. The statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

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 and 337 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. ASI Kuldeep Kumar (PW1) recorded the statement of the informant. Veer Deen (PW2) is an eyewitness, but he did not support the prosecution’s case. Dharam Pal (PW3) took the photographs of the