IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 208 of 2013

Reserved on: 16.12.2025

Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

State of H.P. ...Appellant

Versus o

Suresh Kumar ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

For the Appellant/State: Mr Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate

General.

For the Respondent : M/s Dushyat Dadwal and Shashwat

Dadwal, Advocates.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 23.01.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) P

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 fcommission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Pytare Lal (PW6) was going to the Gas Agency in Lamba Gaon on 18.05.2010 at about 10:15 AM. Rajinder Kumar (since deceased) came from Lamba Gaon riding a bike bearing registration No. HP-34A-1844 towards Jhunga Devi. A Tipper bearing registration No. HP-37B-5172 came from Jhunga Devi and hit the motorcycle. Rajinder Kumar (since deceased) fell and sustained injuries to his head. The Tipper stopped after some distance. The driver identified himself as Suresh Kumar. The accident occurred due to the high speed of the Tipper and the negligence of the accused. The matter was reported to the police, and an entry (Ext.PW9/A) was recorded in the Police Station. SI Gambhir Chand (PW8) visited the spot to verify the correctness of the information. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW8/B) was registered. SI Gambhir Chand (PW8) conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared the report (Ext.PW8/D). He filed an application (Ext. PX) for conPducting the postmortem examination of Rajinder Kumar and obtained the postmortem report (Ext.PY). SI Gambhir Chand (PW8) took the photographs of the spot (Ext.PW8/E1 to Ext.PW8/E5). He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/F). He seized the Tipper and motorcycle vide memo (Ext.PW4/A). He seized the documents of the tipper and the motorcycle vide memos (Ext.PA and Ex.PW4/B). Rajinder Kumar (PW3) examined the motorcycle and Tipper. He found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Exth.PW3/A and Ext.PW3/B). SI Gambhir Chand (PW8) handed gover the motorcycle to the owner Sanjeev Kumar vide memo i(Ext.PW2/A). The owner of the tipper, Karan, issued a certificate (Ext.PB) stating that the accused was driving the tipper at the time of the accident. 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 304-A of the IPC, tPo which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Janak Singh (PW1) and Bishafmber Dass (PW5) are eyewitnesses. Mahinder Singh (PW2), Sarvan (PW4) and Sanjeev Kumar (PW7) witnessed vartious recoveries. Rajinder Kumar (PW3) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. Informant Pyare Lal (PW6) did not support the prosecution’s case. SI Gambhir Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. HC Subhash Chand (PW9) proved the entry in the