State of H.P. vs Dila Ram - 2023 Supreme(HP) 603

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Dila Ram – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jitender Sharma
For the Respondents: J.L. Bhardwaj, Sanjay Bhardwaj

Judgement Key Points

In the context of the provided case, unchallenged evidence refers to testimony or statements made by witnesses that were not effectively disputed or contradicted during cross-examination. Specifically, the evidence of Govind Ram (PW-1), who stated that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and whose testimony was not challenged in cross-examination, is considered unchallenged (!) . When such evidence remains unchallenged, it generally gains significant credibility and can be relied upon by the court in its evaluation of the case.

However, it is important to recognize that unchallenged evidence does not automatically guarantee the correctness of the fact asserted. The court must still consider the overall context and whether the unchallenged testimony is consistent with other evidence on record. In this case, the court noted that the testimonies of other witnesses did not support the assertion that the accused was driving, and some witnesses explicitly stated they could not see who was driving at the time of the accident (!) .

Furthermore, the court emphasized that when a witness's testimony is not challenged during cross-examination, it cannot be simply dismissed or disbelieved without proper reasoning. Still, the court retains the discretion to assess the credibility of unchallenged evidence in conjunction with the entire evidentiary record. In this case, the court found that reliance solely on the unchallenged testimony of Govind Ram was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the contradictions and the lack of corroborative evidence.

In summary, unchallenged evidence is a statement or testimony that has not been contested during cross-examination, and while it is given considerable weight, it must be evaluated within the broader evidentiary framework to determine its probative value.

JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.10.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (JMFC), Kasauli, 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 , 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 185 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 police presented a challan against the respondent/accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 185 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . It was asserted that some unknown person called the Police Station on 6.7.2006 at around 8.05 PM and said that one vehicle had turned turtle near the CHC curve. An entry (Ex.PW5/A) was recorded in the Police Station. HC Ram Lal (PW-6), C. Durga Dutt (not examined) and C. Kamal Kumar were sent to the spot for verification. Raj Kumar (PW-8) made a statement to the police th