Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Yashpal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Cr. MP (M) No. 2880 of 2025
1. Heard. Leave to appeal granted. Application stands disposed of.
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2026
2. Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 419 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 10.07.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. III, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Case Registration No.12239 of 2013, under Sections 279, 337, 304-A & 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, whereby learned Court below held the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) not guilty of his having committed offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions.
3. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant/State, as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the appellant-State, is that learned Court below, while passing impugned judgment of acquittal, failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, findings detrimental to the prosecution has come to the fore. While making this Court peruse evidence adduce
Acquittal upheld in appeal as prosecution failed to prove driver's and vehicle's identity beyond doubt due to witness inconsistencies and log sheet contradiction, affirming double presumption of inno....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to prove the identity of the driver led to the acquittal of the accused, but the appeal allowed and the accused was convicted for ....
Point of Law : It is well settled that specific evidence is required to be adduced on record by prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving, if any, on the part of the accused.
Acquittal under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC upheld for unproven accused identity, eyewitness contradictions, absent rash driving proof, non-examined key witnesses, and victims' alcohol influence ind....
Point of law : 42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the petitioner beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts, as they have not been able to produce any evidence that the petit....
The appellate court confirmed the acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
