Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 308 of 2010
Decided On : 26-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Avni Kochhar
For the Respondent: Suman Thakur

An appellate court must not overturn a trial court's acquittal unless the trial court's view is impossible, potentially perverse, and the weight of evidence contradicts the acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 304A - Appeal against acquittal - The judgment of acquittal dated 01.04.2010 was set aside by the Sessions Judge, stating the informant contradicted herself, and the absence of skid marks indicated the truck was driven on its side of the road - Eyewitness testimony deemed unreliable due to contradictions - Judgment relied on the site's physical evidence substantiating the acquittal. (Paras 1-26)

(B) Acquittal standard - The Appellate Court's scope when dealing with an acquittal is limited; it cannot interfere unless the Trial Court's view is not a possible one and is riddled with perversity. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from the acquittal of the accused, who was charged in a road traffic accident resulting in the death of a motorcyclist. Informant's contradictory statements and physical evidence led to the conclusion of the acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The Sessions Judge emphasized that evidence from the site contradicts the informant's testimony, warranting acquittal.

Issues: The main issues were the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the assessment of physical evidence versus witness statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that given the contradictions in testimony and corroborative physical evidence, the trial court's conviction lacked solidity and was thus overturned.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts and events leading to the accident (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. trial court's findings and rationale (Para 6 , 12)
3. arguments presented in the appeal (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11)
4. legal standards for appeal against acquittal (Para 9 , 14)
5. court's evaluation of evidence and its implications (Para 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.04.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was accepted and he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. (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 informant Bimla Chauhan was posted as Principal in Government High School, Chakli. She had gone to SBI Nahan to withdraw the cash on 05.09.2005. She got down at Behradwala. She was talking to her brother when the deceased Bhupesh came on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP- 18A-2709 from Khadder-Ka-Bagh. A truck bearing registration No. PB10-AZ-1012 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the motorcycle towards the wrong side. The motorcycle was dragged for 15-20 feet. The truck crushed Bhupesh and fell into a gorge. Bhupesh died in the accident. An intimation was given to the police. The police recorded an entry in the daily diary. ASI-Ram Singh (PW8) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the entry. He recorded the statement of Bimla Chauhan (Ext. PW1/C), which was sent to the police station for the registration of the FIR through C-Tika Ram. FIR (Ext. PW8/C) was registered in the police station. ASI-Ram Singh conducted the investigation. HC-Choli Ram (PW5) took the photographs of the spot (Ext. P1 to P11, Ext. DA and DB) whose negatives are Ext P12 to Ext. P24. The inquest on the dead body was conducted and a report (Ext. PW8/A) was prepared. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted by Dr A. Chaturvedi who issued the report (Ext PB). ASI-Ram Singh prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/B). He seized the truck bearing registration bearing No. PB-10AZ-1012 vide memo (Ext. PW1/A). He also seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP18A- 2709 vide memo (Ext. PW1/B). Suresh Chand (PW6) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found that there was no defect in them, which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext. PW6/A and 6/B). The informant Bimla Chauhan identified the accused. He was arrested and his medical examination was conducted by Dr Ajay Gupta, who issued the report (Ext PA). Statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version. Balwinder Singh (PW9) produced the documents of the vehicle bearing Registration No. PB10-AZ- 1012, which were seized vide memo (Ext. PW4/A). Jai Chand (PW3) produced the documents of the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP 18A-2709, which were seized vide memo (Ext. PW3/A). After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. Bimla Chauhan (PW1) is the informant. Ishwar Chand (PW2) reached the spot after hearing the cries of the informant. Jai Chand (PW3) produced the documents of the motorcycle. Salim (PW4) is a witness to the memo (Ext. PW4/A). Choli Ram (PW5) took photographs of the spot. C-Suresh Chand (PW6) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. C. Luv Kumar (PW7) is the witness to the recovery of th