Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Charanjeev – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 4162 of 2013
Decided On : 07-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jitender Sharma
For the Respondent: Aruna Sharma

An acquittal can be upheld when evidence does not unequivocally establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reaffirming the principle of presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, and 338 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of causing injuries in an accident due to insufficient evidence establishing negligence. Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding the parked status of the motorcycle at the time of the incident. The appeal was dismissed due to the possible interpretation of the evidence that supported the acquittal. (Paras 6, 12, 22, 25)

(B) Legal principles governing appeals against acquittals - Appellate courts must not disturb an acquittal unless it is perverse or unsupported by any reasonable evidence, reaffirming the presumption of innocence. (Paras 29-41)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a bus accident where the accused allegedly reversed into a parked motorcycle, injuring its riders. The prosecution's evidence was inconsistent, leading to the acquittal. The accused admitted to driving but denied negligence.

Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court made a plausible assessment considering competing testimonies, leading to a plausible acquittal.

Issues: The questions pertained to the credibility of evidence regarding the motorcycle's state at the accident time and the overall burden of proof on the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear evidence of negligence before an acquittal can be overturned, noting that reasonable doubt was established. No conclusive evidence implicated the accused in negligence, warranting respect for the acquittal.

Result: The appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the learned Trial Court is upheld.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, Camp at Sarahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (in short “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 against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. It was asserted that a bus was going from Mangarh towards Solan, and a pick-up bearing registration No. HP-71-0971 was going towards Mangarh on 15.05.2010 at 08:15 am. The driver of the pickup reversed his vehicle to enable the bus to pass. Yashpal (PW4) and Bhupinder Singh (PW5) were sitting on the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-14A-0729, which was parked on the roadside. The pickup hit the motorcycle. Yashpal (PW4) jumped, but Bhupinder Singh (PW5) was dragged for a considerable distance. The motorcycle was damaged in the accident. Yashpal (PW4) and Bhupinder Singh (PW5) sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital, and an intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ex-PW10/A) was recorded in the police station. HC Varinder Kumar (PW11) and Constable Kamal Kumar were sent to verify the correctness of the information. HC Vinod Kumar recorded the statement (Ex-PW1/A) of Yudhvir Singh (PW3), which was sent to the police station where FIR (Ex-PW11/A) was registered. HC Varinder Kumar investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ex-PW11/C) and seized the vehicles along with the documents vide memos (Ex-PW1/A and Ex. PW9/A). The photographs of the spot (Ex-PW1 to PW5) were taken. Constable Suresh Chand (PW7) mechanically examined the motorcycle and the pickup. He did not find any defect in them which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (EX-PW7/A & Ex-PW7/B). Bhupinder Singh (PW5) was medically examined by Dr Tajinder Bansal, who found that Bhupinder Singh (PW5) had sustained simple and grievance injuries. He issued the MLC (Ex-PX1/A). Yashpal (PW4) was treated in a private hospital, and the treatment summary (Ex-PX/2) was taken into possession. 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. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. Parmod Kumar (PW1), Sushil Kumar (PW2) and the informant Yudhvir Singh (PW3) are the eyewitnesses. Yashpal (PW4) and Bhupinder Singh (PW5) sustained injuries in the accident. Anil Kumar (PW6), Chaman Lal (PW8) and Subhash Sharma (PW9) did not support the prosecution's case. Suresh Chand (PW7) mechanically examined the vehicle. Constable Vipin Kumar (PW10) proved the entry of the daily dairy. HC Virender Kumar (PW11) investigated the matter. Satish Kumar (PW12) is the owner of the vehicle who proved that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-71-0971. He denied the rest of the prosecution's case. He stated that some of the witnesses used to ask him for a lift, but he never allowed any person to board his vehicle. The witnesses deposed against him due to the enmity. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.