Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mala Ram vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 4 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
110
CRR-1331-2018 (O&M)
Reserved on: 26.07.2023
Pronounced on :- 04.08.2023
MALA RAM
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
Challenge is to the judgment dated 20.04.2017 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Narnaul, vide which respondent
No.2, namely, Karamvir, was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Challenge is also to the judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which the judgment dated 20.04.2017
passed by the trial Court, was upheld.
As per the prosecution version, on 27.04.2013, a telephonic
information was received that an accident had occurred at Bhaidanti
Mod, between one Hiwa (dumper) bearing No.RJ-14-GE-8077 and
motorcycle bearing No.HR-35-G-7375. In the said accident, one Prithvi
Raj and Moti Lal had expired. The complainant is stated to be the uncle
of deceased, namely, Prithvi Raj. Respondent No.2, being the driver of
the said Hiwa (dumper), was tried for the offences under Sections 279
and 304-A IPC, which ultimately resulted into his acquittal vide
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104211
110 CRR-1331-2018 (O&M) -2-
impugned judgment dated 20.04.2017.
Aggrieved against the said judgment of acquittal, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Court, which
was dismissed on 24.11.2017. Still aggrieved, the present petition has
been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
judgments passed by both the Courts below are based on conjectures and
surmises; that it has wrongly been recorded by both the Courts below that
there are discrepancies in the site plan (which was prepared at the spot)
and number plates of the vehicles in question and that respondent
No.2/driver of Hiwa (dumper) fled away from the spot. He further
submits that, though the petitioner, while recording his testimony as PW-
4 before the Court below, specifically stated that the place of occurrence
was not a Khada turn (mod) and the offending dumper was seen coming
from a distance of 60-70 feet at a rash and negligent speed, yet the said
fact was not taken into consideration by the Courts below. Still further, it
is submitted that in recovery memo dated 27.04.2013 (Annexure A-3), the
number of the offending vehicle had specifically been mentioned as RJ-
14-GE-8077, but the said fact has completely been brushed aside by the
learned trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
presumption of innocence as drawn by the Courts below and benefit of
doubt given in favour of respondent No.2, is beyond common
understanding.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104211
110 CRR-1331-2018 (O&M) -3-
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have
minutely gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
It is not disputed that the petitioner while deposing before
the trial Court as PW-4 had corroborated the prosecution version in his
Examination-in-Chief. However, during cross-examination he stated that
Mangal Ram (PW-2), who came at the spot after 1-2 minutes, had made
telephonic calls to Police as also for ambulance and that the police and
the ambulance reached the spot after about half an hour of the accident.
He further deposed that he had seen Karamvir (respondent No.2) at the
spot.
Further, the petitioner in his testimony stated that the place
of occurrence was not a Khada turn (mod) and the offending Dumper was
seen coming at a distance of 60-70 feet, being driven in a rash and
negligent manner. However, the said fact is not in consonance with the
site plan, which was prepared at the spot itself. The learned Courts below
have specifically held that the photographs of offending Hiwa (dumper)
and motorcycle were not proved on record and the said photographs do
not show the number plate of offending Dumper and the mechanical
examination regarding it was also not conducted. Neither the notice
under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was served nor the
owner of the offending vehicle, namely Surender Kumar son of Chattar
Singh, was examined by the prosecution.
In recovery memo (Annexure A-3) number of the offending
vehicle has been mentioned as No.RJ-14-GE-8077 (however there is
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104211
110 CRR-1331-2018 (O&M) -4-
cutting on the same), whereas at another place it has been mentioned as
RJ-32-GE-8077. This also creates doubt on the prosecution story.
As noticed above, respondent No.2/accused is said to have
fled away from place of accident. There is nothing on record to suggest as
to how his name came to fore and he has been indicted in present case.
It is a settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, if two
views are possible on appreciation of the evidence and circumstances of
the case, one as taken by the trial Court for acquitting the accused, should
not be interfered with as there are double presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused persons, who were acquitted by the trial Court.
The appreciation of the evidence in the revisional
jurisdiction is required only when there is misreading of any material
evidence on record. Indisputably, both the Courts below have reached the
conclusion on the basis of evidence on record. It could not be pointed out
that the view taken by the Courts below was not a possible view in law.
As noticed above, when there is no clinching evidence as regards the
guilt of the accused, the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused. It is
also trite in law that the prosecution is to prove its case beyond the
shadow of reasonable doubt.
No other point has been urged.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality and
infirmities in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below.
Dismissed.
04.08.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:104211
4 of 4
