Rakesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983

Introduction:

This case[1] brings with it a tale of caution to the honorable judges of the court and the need for attention to detail, as shown by the Honourable Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The case pertains to a revision petition under Sections 397[2] and 401[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure made to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding the case of the demise of Nirmala Devi on 30^th August 2006, by falling off a bus and sustaining injuries which she succumbs to later. It is said by the prosecution that the deceased was traveling with Smt. Rajni Devi who in relation to the deceased is her sister-in-law, to Amb to meet a private doctor. While getting off at Kuthiari, due to rash driving of the bus driver, Nirmala fell off the speeding bus. Charges were brought against the bus driver who then denied the allegations and appealed for a trial.

After the hearing of the witnesses, the bus driver was convicted. The accused then appealed to the Sessions Court of Una where the decision of the Judicial Magistrate was upheld. Then the accused filed a petition to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh where after scrutinizing the details of the case, the Honourable Judge found discrepancies in the facts of the case and found merit in the petition. This case provides us with the scrutinizing excellency of the High Court and the refuge of the petitioner in the judicial system.

Facts

The case has many important and glaring facts that play a large role in the adjudication of the petition approved by the High Court. The facts can be concisely described as follows:

1. Nirmala Devi was traveling with Smt. Rajni Devi (whose sister-in-law is Nirmala Devi) from Primary Health Centre, Amb to Kuthiari.
2. As per Rajni Devi, the victim and she were returning from Primary Health Centre, Amb, after consulting a doctor there about the victim’s child.
3. They were traveling on a public bus as testified by Rajni Devi.)
4. Nirmala Devi fell off the bus near Kuthiari Bus Stand due to rash driving of the bus driver.
5. Nirmala Devi’s husband filed for compensation against the accused bus driver.
6. The Police were informed about the accident at 12:30 PM of that day (06.08.2006) and reached the hospital at Amb at 12:40 PM.
7. The Police took the statements to form Rajni Devi, Naresh, and Sanjeev on spot and prepared the site map as deposed by ASI Prakash Chand.
8. Rajni denied the fact that her statement was taken on the spot and said that it was taken later at her house and added that no site map was prepared on spot.
9. Nirmala Devi was referred later to Zonal Hospital, Una where she was declared dead.
10. Manohar Lal, the owner of New Sunny Tent House, which was not far from the site of the accident deposed on seeing the injured (now deceased) Nirmala and tending her. He also confirmed the number of the bus as deposed by the star witness, Rajni.
11. The Plaintiff’s Witness No. 5, Sanjit Kumar denied the prosecution’s story and was declared hostile. He deposed Nirmala Devi suffering from injuries and being brought to the Primary Health Centre, Amb. But denied his presence at the site of the accident and of any knowledge of it happening due to the rash driving of the bus driver.

The holding of the Court

Honorable Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan caught the indescrepencies in the story of the star witness of this case, Smt. Rajni Devi. He expressed his awe at the failure of the learned Judicial Magistrate and Session Court Judge’s failure to catch up with the incohesive pattern of the story. The Honourable Judge held that the petition of the so accused was to be accepted and his appeal to the High Court for revocation of the impugned judgment of the trial Judicial Magistrate which was upheld by the Session Judge to be set aside. The petitioner was acquitted from all charges and if any bail bonds furnished by the petitioner were to be discharged.

Rationale (Reasoning of the Court)

Honorable High Court Judge, Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, found many unreasonable points in the story of the prosecution. To begin with, Rajni Devi whose sister-in-law is the victim, claims to give her statement at the comfort of her house. This is so true, raises the question of why she wasn’t at the hospital or took her sister-in-law to the hospital herself? Did she leave her sister-in-law on the spot to die? Then the question of the spot of the accident arises which was changed when deposed in the cross examination by Rajni. This raises curiosity and also the fact that she denied standing on the busy bus and said that they were seated and Nirmala didn’t fall off the bus because she was sick. The issue of the accident happening a little far off the bus stand also makes the story of the bus driver rushing after stopping for deboarding the passengers, a little away from the actual bus stand, plausible.

The prosecution also argues against the testament of Rajni Devi that her statements were not taken at her house but the hospital and the site map was also made there itself. This lack of accuracy of facts in the prosecution’s witnesses and evidence raises suspicion. Moreover, the single most important witness who could have made the case of prosecution far stronger was not even reported or presented. The doctor the victim and the witness visits haven’t been named or a statement of the individual hasn’t been acquired. On top of that, the filing for compensation by the victim’s husband makes it clear that this story was concocted by the prosecution and holds no truth. Thus, revoking the impugned judgment of the Judicial Magistrate and the same which was upheld by Session Judge, the Honourable Justice accepted the appeal of the petitioner and acquitted him of all charges.

Conclusion

This case has been a prime example of the importance of Appellate Courts in the judicial system. The scrutiny and intellectual dissections of the facts by the Honourable Judge lead to the petitioner’s relief. The petitioner had already been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate and also brushed away by the Session Court. But it was the Appellate Court’s powers which acquitted him of wrongly pressed charges.

Examination of witnesses of the prosecution in a varied manner gains importance and the fact that the victim’s case of this incident was misleading for truth and justice brings the evermore importance of a non-bias view towards determining the truth in these cases. The excellence of the Honourable Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan in reviewing this case and reaching the truth after eleven years of the incident shows the sheer capability of the justice system to investigate and achieve the truth.

[1] Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 1 November, 1983 (1984 CriLJ 1056)

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1457888/

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1571667/