In Crim. Misc. Petition Main u/s 482 CrPC No.190 of 2020- HP HC- If on perusal of evidence collected by investigation agency, prima facie involvement of person in commission of offence is made out, he is liable for prosecution: Himachal Pradesh HC 
Justice Satyen Vaidya [30-09-2022]

Read Order: AMIT SINGLA v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & Others 

Mansimran Kaur

Shimla, October 6, 2022: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that for trying a person for an offence, mere existence of prima facie material is sufficient.

Justice Satyen Vaidya allowed the instant petition by observing that the material on record was  not sufficient to hold that the death of Ved Prakash was on account of any rash or negligent act of petitioner and also that his death was direct or proximate result of the alleged rash or negligent act of the petitioner.

 Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition were  that the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, HPPWD, Rampur Bushehr, through  award letter dated  had awarded, to the petitioner, the work of widening to two lanes with/without Geometrical Improvement in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner is Contractor by profession.

An FIR, dated April 1, 2014 was registered at Police Station Bhawanagar, District Kinnaur, H.P. at 7.40 P.M., at the instance of one Inder Dass. It was recorded in the FIR that complainant Inder Dass was on his way from Bhawanagar to Nichar in his personal car. He reached near place Latuksha at about 3.00 P.M and had to stop his vehicle as the widening work of the road by Amit Singla Company was in progress and many persons with their vehicles were waiting for the road to open. 

A poclain machine was at work to clear the road for traffic. In the meanwhile, a person named Ved Prakash alighted from Vehicle No. HP-41A-0007, which was parked adjacent to the vehicle of the complainant, and after waiting for some time, Ved Prakash went towards the poclain machine on the pretext that he would evaluate the situation. Ved Prakash reached near the poclain machine.

 Dust was in the air and when the dust settled, it was noticed that the operator of the poclain machine was lifting Ved Prakash, who had fallen on ground and had received an injury on stomach. Ved Prakash had become unconscious due to grievous injury. Ramesh Kumar, who was another occupant of the car from which Ved Prakash had alighted also came on spot. Ved Prakash was taken to Bhawanagar Hospital. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the operator of the poclain machine and the Supervisor of Amit Singla company.

On completion of investigation, the investigating agency presented report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”), recommending prosecution against Fateh Ram, Sanjeev Kumar and petitioner (Amit Singla) under Sections 336, 337, 304-A of the IPC and Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was alleged that firstly, the poclain machine was being operated by a person who did not have licence to operate the machine and secondly no preventive steps were taken  on spot to stop the persons from approaching the area of operation of the poclain machine.

After considering the submissions of the parties,  the Court noted that it  was  not in dispute that the petitioner was not on spot at the time of accident.

The material on record also suggests that the vehicular traffic had stopped due to operation of a poclain machine for clearing the debris. It was therefore, clearly inferable that whosoever was approaching the spot, at relevant time, was stopping the vehicle, noticing the ongoing work, the Court noted. 

 Without going into the fact whether any sign boards etc., were placed on spot, evidently the magnitude of work was such that it was otherwise being noticed by passersby as suggested by the fact that vehicles on either side had stopped. Another factor which needs notice is that the petitioner was engaged in execution of work authorized by the Executive Engineer, National Highway. 

There was also nothing on record to suggest that the work was not executed in the manner it ought to have been.

It is settled that for trying a person for an offence, mere existence of prima facie material is sufficient. In other words, the material which can be looked into at the initial stage of prosecution is the evidence collected by the investigating agency. If on perusal of the evidence collected by the investigation agency, prima facie involvement of a person in the commission of offence is made out, he is liable for prosecution, the Court noted. 

The commission of rash or negligent act is sine qua non for attracting sections 336, 337 and 304-A IPC. To attract the mischief of rashness or negligence against a person, such act of omission or commission must be attributable to him which sans due and proper care or should be so reckless which is not expected from a prudent person in given circumstances. Further, to attract criminal liability, there has to be some tangible material to infer such an act of omission or commission.

 Keeping in view the entirety of circumstances, the Court was of the considered view that the material on record was not sufficient to hold that the death of Ved Prakash was on account of any rash or negligent act of petitioner and also that his death was direct or proximate result of the alleged rash or negligent act of the petitioner.

 The mischief of Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act will not apply against the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition was allowed.