Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Hans Raj – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 188 of 2011
Decided On : 30-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Ms. Jai Prabha and Ms Tejasvi Thakur, Advocate.

Appellate courts must respect acquittals unless the trial court's findings are unsupported by evidence or legally flawed, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 304A - Appeal against judgment of acquittal - Accused acquitted due to lack of evidence for negligence - Testimonies of witnesses did not conclusively establish negligence or high speed of the vehicle as the cause of the accident. (Paras 6, 6-10, 12-14)

(B) Acquittal - Standards for appellate review - An appellate court's interference in acquittal should only occur if the trial court's assessment of evidence is flawed or perverse, with the presumption of innocence reinforced after an acquittal. (Paras 12-28)

Facts of the case:
The accident on 13.06.2008 involved a child struck by a vehicle driven by the accused. The child died shortly after at the hospital. The accused was acquitted after the trial court found insufficient evidence of negligence, favoring the defense narrative that the child had unexpectedly run onto the road.

Findings of Court:
The trial court accepted the defense's argument that sudden action by the child absolved the accused of negligence as reasonable doubt existed.

Issues: The primary issues included the assessment of witness credibility and the sufficiency of evidence to establish negligence on the part of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inconsistency in witness testimony and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding speed and negligence prevented a conviction. Precedents established that an unexpected pedestrian action may absolve a driver of liability.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the accident and trial details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments of the appellant and respondent. (Para 5 , 7 , 9 , 10)
3. court's analysis approach in appeals against acquittal. (Para 6 , 11 , 12)
4. witness testimonies and their impact on prosecution. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. principles on high speed and negligence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
6. continuity of testimony and its reliability. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. conclusion of appeal with no interference needed. (Para 33)
8. final disposition of the case. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Theog, District Shimla (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as 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 Sandeep Kumar (PW-2) was posted as HHG in Police Station Kotkhai in the year 2008. He was on a V.I.P. duty on 13.06.2008 on Jubbal-Kotkhai road. At about 1:20 PM, a vehicle bearing registration No. HP63-1318 pick-up Tempo Trax came on a high speed from Gumma and hit a child. His mother Amita Nanda ( PW-5) was walking with him. The child was crushed under the tyres of the vehicle. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Kotkhai but he succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. The accused was driving the vehicle and the accident had occurred due to his high speed and negligence. Sandeep Kumar made a statement to HC Baldev Singh (PW11) who reduced it into writing (Ext. PW-1/A) and sent it to the police station where FIR (Ext. PW-10/A) was registered. HC Baldev Singh (PW-11) conducted the investigation. He prepared a site plan (Ext. PW-11/A). He took the photographs with the help of an official camera but those photographs could not be developed and the negative (Ext. PW-11/B) were retained on record. Accused Hans Raj produced the vehicle bearing registration No. HP63-1318 along with the documents which were seized vide memo (Ext. PW-1/B). The inquest of the dead body was conducted and a report (Ext. PW-11/C) was prepared. An application (Ext. PW-7/B) was made for the post-mortem examination of the deceased child. Dr Pankaj Saki (PW-7) conducted the post- mortem examinationu of the deceased child and found that he had died due to a heaod injury. He issued the report (Ext. PW-7/A). The dead body was handed over to Mohit Nanda vide memo (Ext. PW-11/D). The articles being transported in the vehicle were handed over to Ramesh Chand (PW-3) vide memo (Ext. PW-1/C). The mechanical examination of the vehicle was conducted by HConstable Rajinder Singh (PW-13) who issued the report (Ext. PW-13/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

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

4. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case. Constable Sohan Singh (PW-1) carried rukka to the police station. Sandeep Kumar (PW-2) reported the matter to the police. Ramesh Chand (PW-3) was travelling in the vehicle with the accused. Nikhil Thakur (PW-4), Upesh (PW-14), and Amita Nanda (PW-5) are the eyewitnesses. Vishal Nanda (PW-6) is the father of the child, Dr. Pankaj Saki (PW-7) conducted the post- mortem examinationu of the child. Ravinder Mehta (PW-8) is the witness to the moemo. Tameshwar Thakur (PW-9) prepared the challan. HCC Mohan Singh (PW-10) signed the FIR. HC Baldev Singh