(Ranjan Gogoi, Abhay Manohar Sapre and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
Roop Lal _______________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Himachal Pradesh ________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1749 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5397 of 2017], decided on October 9, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The challenge in this appeal is to an order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 12th April, 2017/26th April, 2017 by which the acquittal of the appellant has been reversed and he has been found guilty of commission of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sentence imposed is one of simple imprisonment of three months. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
4. We have considered the matter. We have read the order of the learned trial Court as well as the order of the High Court. We have considered the evidence on record.
5. From the materials on record it transpires that the accused appellant was driving a fully loaded Truck which was going uphill when it met with an accident with a Maruti Alto Car which was coming downhill. The very fact that the fully loaded truck was going uphill would be suggestive of the fact that the vehicle in question (fully loaded truck) was in minimal speed.
6. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out from the site-map prepared by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) that the place where the accident took place was a flat area. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid position inasmuch as the finding of the courts below is to the effect that the site map was not prepared in the presence of the eye witnesses.
7. The power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by a self-imposed limitation that so long as the view taken by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused appellant is a possible view the High Court ought not to interfere.
8. The aforesaid principle, which has stood the test of time, if applied to the present case, we are of the view that the order of the High Court will have to be faulted. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and allow this appeal.
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 5397/2017
Roop Lal _________________________________________ Petitioner
v.
The State of Himachal Pradesh _______________________ Respondent
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF)
Date : 09-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi, Abhay Manohar Sapre and Navin Sinha, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
9. Leave granted.
10. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
