IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) laying challenge to judgment, dated 11.01.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. whereby the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.06.2001, M.O., SDH Kangra had telephonically informed the Police Station Kangra that a patient with the alleged history of road accident was brought to the hospital. On receiving such information, the police officials proceeded towards the hospital and recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C., who stated that on 12.06.2001, he was going with his associates in a Mahindra Commander Jeep, bearing registration No. PB-06-B-1511, which was being driven by Harbans Lal. When the aforesaid vehicle was about to reach Daulatpur, then at about 3:45 A.M., a Mahindra Pick-up, bearing registration No. HP-19A- 0129 came from the opposite side and hit the vehicle being driven by Harbans Lal. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of accused Nasib Lal, in which, Harbans Lal and Ramesh Kumar suffered injuries. Thereafter, both the injured persons were medically examined and their MLCs were procured, according to which, all the injuries were found to be simple in nature. After completion of all the codal formalities, challan was presented against the accused in the learned trial Court.

3. On finding prima facie case against the accused, notice of accusation was put to him under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.01.2011, acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC, hence, the present appeal by the State.

6. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent/accused and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the learned trial Court has discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons in the absence of any proof of enmity and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned for discarding the version of official witnesses. With these submissions, he prayed for setting-aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and acceptance of the instant appeal.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him.

9. At the very outset, it needs to be observed that the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal as an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. In Dhanapal vs. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

“25. The same principle has been followed in Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 (at pp. 809-10 para 5), wherein the Court said:

“5. …It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidenc