Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 142 of 2014
Decided On : 07-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr Vijay Singh Bhatia, Advocate.

Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if perverse or ignoring material evidence; prosecution must ensure witness production despite summons; accused statements to police inadmissible as evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 304-A - Rash and negligent driving causing hurt by act endangering life and causing death by negligence - Prosecution failed to prove accused was driving vehicle at high speed or that negligence led to accident - Key witness did not support case, denying knowledge of driver or vehicle details - Mechanical inspection revealed no defect - Acquitted by trial court; appeal against acquittal - Interference warranted only if judgment perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or no reasonable view supports acquittal - Double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases - If two reasonable views possible, appellate court should not disturb trial court's finding. (Paras 6, 12, 13, 20, 26)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 162 - Statements made to investigating officer during investigation inadmissible as substantive evidence - Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Confessions to police inadmissible - Certificate admitting driving at relevant time hit by both provisions. (Paras 23, 24)

(C) Prosecution - Duty to produce witnesses and ensure summons service - Repeated failure despite opportunities justifies closing of evidence - No duty on court to issue notices to investigating officer or station house officer when prosecutor present and orders passed in open court - Prosecution apathy cannot prejudice accused. (Paras 15-19)

Facts of the case:
Vehicle proceeded at high speed on bridge crowded with pedestrians, hit adult and child; child declared dead, adult suffered simple injuries consistent with motor accident; driver stopped vehicle then fled; informant shopkeeper made initial statement leading to FIR; investigation included site plan, photos showing blood on tyre, vehicle seizure, mechanical check (no defect); trial witnesses partial, key informant turned hostile.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence insufficient to link accused to driving or establish rashness/negligence; trial court rightly acquitted; no perversity in closing evidence or appreciation of testimony.

Issues: Whether trial court erred in closing prosecution evidence without further notices; whether acquittal perverse given circumstances like signed statement, photos, driving certificate; proof that accused drove negligently causing accident.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate interference in acquittal limited to patent perversity, misreading/omission of evidence, or sole view supporting guilt; prosecution bears burden to diligently secure witnesses; police statements/certificates inadmissible against accused. Result : Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rash driving caused pedestrian injury and child death. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial acquitted accused for unproven negligence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. trial court erred closing prosecution evidence prematurely. (Para 7 , 9)
4. acquittal interference only if patently perverse. (Para 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. prosecution lapsed in witness production. (Para 10)
6. closing evidence justified by prosecution apathy. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. hostile witness testimony prevails over prior statement. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. accused's police statement inadmissible under crpc 162. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. no proof of accused driving or negligence. (Para 26)
10. appeal dismissed upholding acquittal. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (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 before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC. It was asserted that Jodh Singh (PW3) was running a shop at Seu Bridge. Many pilgrims were walking at Seu Bridge on 24.4.2006, at about 9.25 AM. They were going to Baba Balaknath Deotsidh. A Tata Sumo bearing registration No. PB08-AD-8587 went towards the Talai Bazar at a high speed and hit a boy and a man. The driver stopped the vehicle after some distance and ran away. The injured revealed his name as Tarsem Lal, and the name of the boy was found to be Lucky. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Hari Ram (PW2) and HC Raj Kumar (PW6) went to the spot for verification of the information. Jodh Singh made a statement (Ex.PW2/B), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW2/C) was registered. ASI Hari Singh (PW2) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW2/E). Ajay Kumar took the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P8) whose negatives are Ex. P9 to Ex. P16. The vehicle was seized vide memo (Ex.PW2/F). ASI Hari Singh filed an application (Ex.PW2/G) for material examination of the injured. The child was declared dead in the hospital. Inquest (Ex.PW2/H) was conducted. An application (Ex.PW2/J) was filed for the postmortem examination of the child, and a report (Ex.PW2/H) was issued. The mechanical examination of the vehicle was conducted by HC Dev Raj (PW7), who found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. A certificate (Ex.PW2/U) was issued stating that the accused was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. Medical examination of Tarsem Singh was conducted by Dr Manjit Singh (PW1), who found that he had suffered injuries which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. He advised X-ray examination. Dr D. Bhagnal (PW8) conducted an X-ray examination and found that there was no fracture. He issued a report (Ex.PW8/A). Dr Manjeet Singh (PW1) issued a final report stating that Tarsem Singh had sustained simple injuries which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined 09 witnesses t