Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Barjinder Singh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.27 of 2013
Decided On : 19-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant/State :Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate

Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove driver identity without test parade for strangers and negligence via facts, not witness opinions; appellate court interferes only if perverse.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 337 - Rash and negligent driving endangering life and causing hurt - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate interference permissible only if judgment perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or no reasonable view possible - Site plan admissible for observations of investigating officer, not requiring presence of witnesses as their statements inadmissible under investigation rules - Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal if examined witnesses reliable - Dock identification of stranger driver unreliable without prior test identification parade, especially first-time court identification - Witnesses cannot opine on negligence; must be inferred from facts like site plan contradicting testimony on accident location - Acquittal sustainable though on different grounds. (Paras 12-19, 20-27, 32-36)

(B) Identification of accused - Dock identification by eyewitnesses who did not know accused prior, without test identification parade, holds no evidentiary value and is highly unreliable. (Paras 21-27)

(C) Evidence appreciation - Prosecution must prove every ingredient including identity beyond doubt; mere high speed allegation insufficient without negligence proof from facts. (Paras 32-36)

Facts of the case:
Injured and eyewitness walking on road hit by bus allegedly driven rashly at high speed on unmetalled portion causing simple injuries. Driver charged but acquitted by trial court for flawed investigation and unproved negligence. State appealed asserting proper witness appreciation.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to establish identity of driver as eyewitnesses contradicted, no prior identification, and dock identification invalid; negligence unproved as witnesses opined directly, site plan showed accident on metalled road contradicting claim.

Issues: Scope of appellate interference in acquittal; validity of site plan and witness association; need for independent witnesses; proof of driver identity without test parade; whether witnesses can testify negligence.

Ratio Decidendi: Trial court acquittal upheld on grounds of unproved driver identity due to lack of test identification parade and contradictory testimony, and negligence required factual inference not direct witness opinion, supported by site plan discrepancies.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. bus hit pedestrian due to high speed negligence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial acquitted for site plan and witness lapses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments contest trial acquittal and negligence proof. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. site plan admissible for io observations only. (Para 14 , 15)
6. witness quality trumps quantity; non-exam not fatal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. dock id without tip unreliable for stranger accused. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
8. site plan, photos contradict kachha road accident. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
9. witnesses state facts; court infers negligence. (Para 35 , 36)
10. acquittal sustained on unproved identity, negligence. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Court No.1, Kangra, District Kangra, 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 and 337 of 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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. It was asserted that the informant Lalita Devi (PW-1) and Ujjala Devi (PW-2) were going towards Bheri on 28.03.2010. A bus bearing registration No. HP68-2439 came at a high speed and hit the informant on the Kachha portion of the road at 10:00-10:15 a.m. near Sanoura Chowk. The informant fell and sustained injuries. Kamlesh Kumar and Ujjala Devi (PW-2) took the injured to the hospital. Accused Barjinder Singh was driving the bus at the time of the accident, and the accident occurred due to his negligence and the high speed of the bus. Intimation was given to the police. An entry was duly recorded. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW-8) went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the informant (Ext.PW-1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-8/A) was registered. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW-8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-8/B), and seized the bus and its documents vide memo (Ext.PW-4/A). Arun Kumar (PW-7) mechanically examined the bus and did not find any defect in it which could have led to the accident. He issued his report (Ext.PW-7/A). Photographs (Ext.PW8/A1 to Ext.PW8/4A) were taken. Dr Rohit Sharma (PW- 9) medically examined Lalita Devi and found that she had sustained simple injuries, which could have been caused by a motor vehicle accident. He issued MLC (Ext.PW-9/A). The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after 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 and 337 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Lalita Devi (PW-1) is the informant. Ujjla Devi (PW-2) is an eyewitness Onkar Singh (PW-3) and Ravi Dutt (PW-4) did not support the prosecution’s case. Baldev Raj (PW-5) is the husband of the injured. Raman Kumar (PW-6) witnessed the recovery. Arun Kumar (PW-7) mechanically examined the bus. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW-8) investigated the matter. Dr Rohit Sharma (PW-9) medically examined the injured. HC Anjan Paul (PW-10) partly investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution in its entirety. He claimed that witnesses deposed falsely against