Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Subhash Chand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 2011
Decided on : 21-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to prove the identity of the driver led to the acquittal of the accused, but the appeal allowed and the accused was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:
Acquittal - Offences under Sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act - 279, 337, 196 - The prosecution failed to prove the identity of the driver. The accused was acquitted. The appeal was filed asserting that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and there was no reason to discard them. The identity of the accused was not established. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not establish the identity of the driver. The accused was acquitted. The appeal was allowed and the accused was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the identity of the driver. The accused was acquitted. The present appeal was filed asserting that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and there was no reason to discard them.
Finding of the Court:

The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the identity of the driver. The accused was acquitted. The appeal was filed asserting that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible and there was no reason to discard them. The identity of the accused was not established. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not establish the identity of the driver. The accused was acquitted. The appeal was allowed and the accused was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: The main issue was the failure of the prosecution to prove the identity of the driver, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The appeal was filed to challenge the acquittal and establish the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not establish the identity of the driver, leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, the appeal was allowed and the accused was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the accused was convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.2.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, H.P., vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the prosecution presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was asserted that the informant Karan Singh (PW-2) used to drive an Auto bearing registration no. HP-50-0390. He reached Mohan Park on 24.1.2005, at around 4:30 PM. He stopped the Auto towards the roadside and was taking money from the passenger. A bus bearing registration no. HP-14-6719 came at a high speed and hit the rear side of the Auto. Pooja Thakur (PW-11), Anju Bala (PW-1), Dhan Singh (PW-4) and informant Karan Singh (PW-2) sustained injuries. The driver revealed his name as Subhash Chand on inquiry. The injured were taken to the hospital for treatment. An intimation was given to the Police, on which an entry no. 15 (Ex. PX) was recorded. HC Ram Swaroop (PW-7), HC Swarn Singh and C. Hira Singh were directed to verify the correctness of the information. Karan Singh made a statement (Ex.PW-2/A) which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW-7/A) was registered. HC Ram Swaroop (PW-7) conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (PW-7/B) and seized the bus bearing registration no. HP-14-6719 vide memo (Ex.PW-5/A) and Auto bearing registration no. HP-50- 0390 vide memo (Ex.PW-9/E). He took photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P3), whose negatives are Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. Yogender Kumar (PW-3) conducted a mechanical examination of the bus and Auto. He found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicles which could have led to the accident. He issued reports (Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B). The driving licence of the bus driver was seized vide memo (Ex.PW-7/C). Dr B.S. Dhiman (PW- 10) conducted a medical examination of Karan Singh, Subhash Chand, Anju Bala and Pooja Thakur and found that they had suffered simple injuries, which could have been caused by a motor vehicle accident. He issued the MLCs (Ex.PW-10/A to Ex.PW-10/F). He advised the X-ray of the scalp and CT Scan of Pooja Thakur, however, no fracture was detected. HC Ram Swaroop recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He handed over the case file to the Incharge, Police Post City on his transfer. HC Dharam Singh (PW-12) conducted further investigation. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3. The learned Trial Court put the Notice of Accusation for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the accused who denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. Anju Bala (PW-1), Dhan Singh (PW-4), and Pooja Thakur (PW-11) are the injured and eyewitnesses. Yogender Kumar (PW-3) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. Rakesh Kumar (Pw-5) is the witness to the recovery of the documents and the driving licence. Surinder Singh (PW-6) was the General Power of Attorney holder of the owner, who proved that the accused was driving the vehicle on the relevant date. HC Ram Ram Swaroop (PW-7) conducted the investigation. Sanjeev Kumar (PW-8) proved the entry in the daily diary. Kuldeep Chandel (PW-9) is the witness to the recovery. Dr B.S. Dhiman (PW-10) conducted the medical examination of the injured. ASI Dharam Singh (PW-12) conducted the investigation partly.

4. The accused in his statement recorde