IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No.212 of 2015

Reserved on: 16.12.2025

Decided on: 01.01.2026

State of Himachal Pradesh

...…. Appellant

Versus

Harbhajan Singh …. Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate

General.

/State

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 06.09.2014, passed by earned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charged offences. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes.

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 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Subhash Chand (PW-1), was sitting int his Dhaba on 26.05.2006. A vehicle bearing registration No. DL-3CAM-1475 came from Gaggal at a high speed and hit a boy who was crossing the road. The boy sustained injuries, and he was taken to the hospital. The driver revealed his name as Harbhajan Singh (the accused) after hinquiry. The accident occurred due to the high speed and negligence of the accused. An intimation was given to the police, and the police recorded an entry (Ext. PW12/A) in the Police Station. ASI Shiv Kanya (PW-12) went to the hospital for verification. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext. PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext. PW12/C) was registered. Satish Singh (PW-5) took the photographs of the spot (Ext. PW5/A to Ext.PW5/D), whose negatives are Ext.PW5/E1 to Ext.PW5/E4. ASI Shiv Kanya (PW-12) prepared the site plan (Ext.PW12/E). The child subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The inquest on the dead body was conducted. Vishal (PW11) took the photographs of the dead body (Ext.PW11/A and Ext.PW11/B), whose negatives are Ext.PW11/C and Ext.PW11/D). An application (Ext.PW-6/A) was filed for conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Dr Chanderdeep (PW-6) confducted the post-mortem examination and found the cause of death to be a combined effect of neurogenic shock, hemorrhagic shock, and asphyxia (due to aspiration of blood) caused by the ante mortem injuries sustained in a roadside accident. He issued a report (Ext.PW-6/C). The vehicle bearing registration DL-3CAM-1475 was seized alongwith its documents vide memo (Ext.PW-2/A). HHC Inderjeet (PW-9) mechanically examined the vehicle, and he did not find any defect in the vehicle, which could have led to the accident. He issued a report (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 304-A of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to prove its case. Informant Subhash Chand (PW-1) did not support the prosecution’s case. HHC Hari Singh (PW-2) intercepted the vehicle at the nakka. Hari Krishan (PW-3), Kali Dass (PW-4), and Kanta Devi (PW-7) are the eyewitnesses. Satish Singh (PW-5) tookt the photographs of the spot. Dr Chanderdeep (PW-6) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dec