Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(HP) 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Dila Ram - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 144 of 2011
Decided On : 29-12-2023

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

The acquittal in a criminal case emphasizes the necessity of credible evidence linking the accused to the charges, alongside the principle of presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, 338 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 185 - Acquittal of accused for reckless driving after a vehicle accident - Trial Court found insufficient evidence linking accused to intoxication and driving - Eyewitnesses did not support prosecution’s case - Testimonies lacked credibility - Blood sample chain of custody missing - Appeal dismissed based on Trial Court’s reasonable conclusion. (Paras 1, 6, 12, 22, 35-37)

(B) Appeal against acquittal - Standards for appellate review emphasize presumption of innocence and reluctance to disturb Trial Court’s findings unless perverse - Evidence must satisfy high burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. (Paras 12, 17, 28)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from acquittal of an individual accused of driving under the influence and causing an accident. The prosecution's evidence was discredited due to lack of eyewitness support, while the defense argued that crucial witnesses contradicted statements leading to a reasonable doubt about guilt.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused, thus granting acquittal.

Issues: The core issues include the reliability of eyewitness accounts, the impact of intoxication on the accused, and whether the prosecution established a credible connection between the accused and intoxication leading to the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted the necessity of establishing a strong link between evidence presented and accusations in criminal trials, especially under the stringent standard required for proving intoxication. The appellate court upheld the Trial Court's findings for lack of substantial evidence required for conviction.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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 that he was serving in Blue Ginger Café near CHC, Dharampur. He was standing outside the Café on 6.7.2006 at around 8.00 PM. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-64-0725 came from Dharampur towards Kalka at a high speed. The driver turned the vehicle towards the hill and thereafter swerved the vehicle towards the other side. The vehicle turned turtle. The left arm of an occupant was crushed under the vehicle. The informant and other persons ran to the spot and turned the vehicle. The occupant had sustained injuries on his arm. Two other persons were sitting in the vehicle but they had not sustained any injury. All of them appeared to be intoxicated. The name of the driver was found to be Dile Ram. The accident occurred due to the high speed and negligence of Dile Ram. The statement (Ex.PW-6/A) was reduced into writing and sent to the Police Station through C. Kamal Kumar for the registration of FIR. FIR (Ex.PW-6/B) was registered in the Police Station. The injured were sent to the hospital with C. Durga Dutt for their medical examination. Dr. Ambika Sood (PW-4) conducted the medical examination of Dile Ram and found that he had consumed alcohol or an alcohol-like substance. No injuries were seen on his body. A blood sample was taken but a urine sample could not be taken due to an empty bladder. MLC (Ex.PW-4/A) was issued. She also examined Govind Ram and found that he smelled of alcohol or alcohol-like substances and had not sustained any injury. A blood sample was taken and it was handed over to the police. She issued the MLC (Ex.PW-4/B). She also examined Rakesh Kumar and found that he had a crush injury on the whole of the left forearm; small lacerations were present behind the left ear. The smell of alcohol and alcohol-like substance was present. She issued MLC (Ex.PW-4/C). Ram Lal (PW-6) conducted the investigation. The photographs of the spot (Ex.P1 to Ex.P-6), whose negatives are Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 were taken. A site plan (Ex.PW-6/C) was prepared. The vehicle bearing registration No. HP-64-0725 was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/A). Yoginder Kumar (PW-3) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found that there was no defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW-3/A). Injured Rakesh Kumar was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. His case summary (Mark-A) was obtained from PGI. A report of analysis (Ex. PX) was received in which it was shown that the blood samples contained alcohol. 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. Learned Trial Court put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of IPC and Sec