Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 497 of 2010
Decided On : 26-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate vice Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

Negligence in vehicular accidents must be proven beyond mere assertions of speed; the prosecution bears the burden of establishing culpability.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304-A - Appeal against acquittal - Respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court of offences resulting from a motorcycle accident leading to death - Court reiterated that negligence must be established beyond mere assertion of ‘high speed’, and the burden remains on prosecution to prove the accused’s culpability. (Paras 12, 18, 21, 23)

(B) Acquittal - Standards for interference by appellate courts - The appellate court should only interfere if the verdict is patently perverse, based on misreading of evidence, and no two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the record. (Paras 12, 41)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the acquittal of the respondent for causing death by negligence in a motorcycle accident; key witnesses failed to substantiate claims of the respondent's negligence, alongside conflicting testimonies. (Para 6)

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld that without evidence to define 'high speed' or establish negligence, the Trial Court’s acquittal was justified; it emphasized the presumption of innocence for the accused. (Paras 23, 25)

Issues: Whether the accused was liable for negligence in driving leading to the accident and the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution. (Para 4)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that mere assertions of high speed are insufficient to prove negligence without additional context or evidence; the burden rests on the prosecution to establish the elements of the crime clearly. (Paras 18, 21)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts of the accident (Para 2 , 4)
2. lower court's acquittal for lack of evidence (Para 6 , 7)
3. arguments for appeal (Para 9 , 10)
4. witness testimony evaluation (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20)
5. duty of proof in negligence cases (Para 18 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. final judgment dismissing appeal (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.2010, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). (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 informant, Ramesh Chand (PW-1), was carrying out the construction of Suresh Bakshi’s building. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP37-2108 came from Tang at a high speed at 4:45 p.m. Two persons were riding the motorcycle. Dulo Ram (since deceased) was coming from Narwana Bazar with a gunny bag on his head. The motorcycle hit Dulo Ram, and he fell on the road. Motorcycle riders stopped the motorcycle at some distance and ran away from the spot. The informant and other persons reached the spot.They found that Dulo Ram had sustained injuries. He subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle rider. The police were informed about the accident. An entry (Ext.PW-10/A) was recorded at the Police Station. ASI Geeta Parkash (PW-8) went to the spot for verification of the information. He recorded the statement of Ramesh Chand (Ext.PW-8/A)and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-8/B) was registered. ASI Geeta Parkash (PW-8)conducted the investigation. Raj Kumar (PW-14) took the photographs (Ext.PW-14/A to Ext.PW-14/G) of the spot whose negatives are Ext.PW-14/H to Ext.PW-14/N. ASI Geeta Parkash (PW-8) prepared a site plan (Ext.PW-8/D).He conducted an inquest of the dead body and prepared a report (Ext.PW-8/F).He filed an application (Ext.PW-8/E) for conducting the post- mortem of the deceased. Dr Harjinder Singh Sohal (PW-4) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found that Dulo Ram had died due to haemorrhagic shock caused by ante mortem head injury. He issued the report (Ext.PW-4/A). ASI Geeta Parkash (PW-8) seized the motorcycle vide memo(Ext.PW- 2/A).HHC Mangal Singh (PW-13) conducted the mechanical examination of the motorcycle and found that there was no defect in it, which could have led to the accident.He issued the report (Ext.PW-13/A). The accused was arrested, and it was found that he had sustained injuries in the incident. An application was filed for his medical examination, and Dr. Veena Pathiarch (PW-9) conducted his medical examination.She found that he had sustained grievous injuries, which could have been caused within 24 hours of examination. She issued MLC (Ext.PW9/A). ASI Geeta Parkash recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses as per their version. After completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court put notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined fourteen (14)witnesses to prove its case. Ramesh Chand (PW-1)did not support the prosecution case. Tarsem Lal (PW-2) is the witness to the recovery of the motorcycle. Subhash Chand (PW-3) is an eyewitness. Dr Harjinder Singh (PW-4) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) heard the noise and found that Dulo Ram had died. Ajay Kumar (PW-6) is the owner of the motorcycle. Amar Chandel (PW-7) did not support the pr