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 innocence and appellate non-interference with reasonable trial findings.

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 adduced on record by the prosecution to prove its case, Mr. Panwar vehemently argued that sister of the complainant died in the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused, who otherwise fled from the spot after the alleged incident. While referring to the statement of PW-10, Mr. Panwar attempted to argue that learned Court below wrongly arrived at a conclusion that prosecution was unable to prove identity of the driver as well as vehicle involved in the accident. He states that as per statement given by the aforesaid witness and the daily log sheet Ext.PW-10/A, the vehicle involved in the accident was being driven by the accused.

4. To the contrary, Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the accused, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, vehemently argued that no evidence worth credence ever came to be led on record to prove factum of driving of offending vehicle by the accused. While referring to the statement given by PW-10 as well as daily log sheet Ext.PW-10/A, Mr. Singh argued that afore witness nowhere stated that vehicle alleged to have caused accident belonged to his company and the same was being driven by the accused, rather he categorically stated that at about 05:00 p.m., vehicle had returned to the base camp, which is at a distance of about 36 Kms from the place of accident. He stated that otherwise also, as per case of the prosecution, accident happened at 05:00 p.m., if it is so, in no eventuality, accused can be said to have reached base camp, which is at a distance of about 36 Kms, within a minute.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the same, as such, no interference is called for. Though prosecution, in the case at hand, examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case, but statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 are relevant for proper adjudication of the case at hand. As per the case of the prosecution, on 28.10.2012 at about 5:00 p.m., near place Lathiani, the accused, while driving a vehicle/tipper bearing registration No. HP-72-1292 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the complainant’s motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-20B-6629, as a result t