Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Vikash @ Sonu – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 416 of 2012
Decided On : 04-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dheeraj Vashisht, Advocate.

The appellate court held that identification of an accused in court is ineffective without prior identification procedures, and acquittals are upheld unless proven unjust.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 337 - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 181 and 196 - Acquittal of accused in traffic incident - The Trial Court acquitted based on lack of identification and evidence connecting accused to the crime, emphasizing the necessity of pre-trial identification procedures. (Paras 1, 6, 25)

(B) Appeal - Scope of interference in acquittal - The appellate court can overturn an acquittal only if the trial court's findings suffer from patent perversity or misapprehension of evidence. (Paras 12, 25)

Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 04.04.2007 when a motorcycle hit two pedestrians. Witnesses identified the rider, but the Trial Court found identification unreliable due to lack of prior procedures. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court upheld the trial court decision, finding no conclusive evidence linking the accused to the incident, noting the importance of identification procedures. (Paras 12, 25)

Issues: Main issues included the reliability of witness identification and the sufficiency of evidence linking the accused to the motorcycle involved. (Paras 6, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that identification of an accused for the first time in court is insufficient without prior identification and that acquittal should be upheld unless evidence shows otherwise. (Paras 12, 25)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sections 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). (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 against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act. It was asserted that the informant, Darshan Kumar (PW1) and Prem Chand (PW2) were talking to each other on 04.04.2007 at a roadside at Sarnu. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP44-0506 came from Rait at a high speed and hit the informant and Prem Chand at about 6:45 pm. The motorcyclists had not switched on the headlights. The informant and Prem Chand fell. The motorcyclist and the pillion rider also fell. However, the motorcyclist and the pillion rider ran away from the spot. The informant could identify the motorcyclist. The incident was witnessed by Sanjeev Kumar (PW6) and Virender Kumar (PW10). The matter was reported to the police, and the statement of the informant (Ext.PW1/A) was recorded, which was sent to the Police station where FIR (Ext.PW11/A) was registered. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW8) investigated the matter. He applied for the medical examination of the injured. Dr Avinash Goel (PW4) medically examined Darshan Kumar (PW1) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused by a blunt weapon within six hours of examination. He was advised X-ray, but he declined to undergo an X-ray. MLC (Ext.PW4/B) was issued. Dr Avinash Goel (PW4) also examined Prem Chand (PW2) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within six hours of examination by a blunt weapon. He advised X-ray, but Prem Chand (PW2) declined to undergo an X-ray. MLC (Ext.PW4/C) was issued. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW8) visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/A). Rajan Chauhan (PW5) took the photographs of the spot (Ext.PW5/A to Ext. PW5/C) whose negatives are Ext. PW5/A-1 to Ext. PW5/A-3. Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP44-0506 was seized vide memo (Ext.PW8/B). Inderjeet (PW7) mechanically examined the motorcycle and found that there was no mechanical defect in it which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW7/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to put the notice of accusation to the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and Sections 186 and 196 of the MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. Darshan Kumar (PW1) is the informant/victim. Prem Chand (PW2) is another victim. Tej Singh (PW3) was a pillion rider, but he did not support the prosecution’s case. Dr Avinash Goel (PW4) medically examined the injured. Rajan Chauhan (PW5) took the photographs. Sanjeev Kumar (PW6) and Virender Kumar (PW10) are the eyewitnesses. HHC Inderjeet (PW7) mechanically examined the motorcycle. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW8) investigated the matter. Sanjeev Kumar (PW9) is the witness to the recovery of the motorcycle. Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW11) prepared the challan.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that he was going to fill up the