State of H.P. vs Saroj Sharma - 2025 Supreme(HP) 1682

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1682

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Saroj Sharma – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Ms Divyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

Table of Content
1. rash driving accident facts and trial proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. trial acquitted on probable defense version. (Para 6)
3. parties contend on acquittal errors and interference. (Para 7 , 9 , 10)
4. interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. prosecution witnesses contradictory to site plan. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. high speed alone proves no negligence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. witnesses cannot opine on driver negligence. (Para 29 , 30)
8. uphold reasonable trial court acquittal view. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Nurpur, 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, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 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