State of H.P v. Sonu
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
hence the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 279, 337, 338
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 313
Judgment
Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Yoginder Paul, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (oral): The acquittal of the respondent has been assailed in this appeal for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard and gone through the record. Precisely in the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 4.12.98, at about 8.30 a.m., on the Cart road, Shimla near (cid:147)Krishna Coal Company(cid:148), the Taxi No.HP-02-1902, which was being allegedly driven by the respondent, caused accident, thereby injuring PW3 Ashwani Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Kumar and PW6 Vikas Thakur, the students of 9th standard of Govt. Senior Secondary School Lalpani.
Both the injured were medically examined. PW6 sustained the facture in his left leg and his class-mate Vikas sustained the injuries on his right foot. Both the injured were taken to the hospital. Police was informed. PW6 Vikas Thakur got recorded his statement in the hospital to ASI Surinder Singh (PW10), on the basis of which FIR was lodged. The respondent was charge-sheeted and on completion of the trial, he was acquitted. Although PW6 Vikas Thakur stated that he sustained the injuries because of hitting the vehicle against his foot which was in a high speed, but in his cross-examination stated that he could not see the driver nor he stated that it was the respondent driving the vehicle and that too in a rash and negligent manner. Contra the injured Ashwani Kumar has stated that the respondent was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and attributed the rash and negligent act to him, but in cross- examination, he shattered his case and - 3 - stated that he was informed by Jitender Chandel later on that it was the respondent, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
Operative part
Jitender Kumar was never cited as a witness nor he was examined in the court. Further, at the time of lodging the FIR, he did not disclose the name of the driver, but only supplied the number of the taxi. Even the statement of PW7 constable Suresh Kumar is also not inspiring confidence. Further the Investigating Officer has stated that after lodging the FIR, respondent was called from the Taxi stand, but neither his driving licence was taken into possession nor it is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time that the respondent was driving the vehicle in question without any valid licence. In view of this conflicting evidence and more specifically, the stand taken by the respondent in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that neither he was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time nor he caused the accident, assumes importance. Thus, the prosecution - 4 - cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly, when the identity of the respondent is not established in accordance with law. As such, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with, hence the appeal is dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. Judge. (Surinder Singh), May 22, 2009. (Pds)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: hence the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 279, 337, 338; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 22 May 2009.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.