State of Himachal Pradesh vs Hem Raj

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Hem Raj – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Y.P.Sood, Advocate.

Table of Content
1. fatal bus accident facts and trial acquittal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties argue evidence appreciation in acquittal appeal (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
3. limited appellate interference absent perversity in acquittal (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. inconsistent witness claims; no lay negligence opinions (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. unreliable evidence; probable mechanical defect over negligence (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. appeal dismissed upholding trial acquittal (Para 33 , 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the accused (respondent before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A 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 be