IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 338 of 2014

Reserved on: 15.12.2025 Decided on: 01.01.2026

State of Himachal Pradesh

...…. Appellant

Versus

Sunil Kumar …. 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 Sharma, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

idated 25.04.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class (II), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (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 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). (Parties shall

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

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 the IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. It was asserted that Kashmir Singh (PW- 2) was driving the bus bearintg registration No. HP-48-7505 on 14.11.2028. A truck bearing registration No. HP-51B-0619 came from the opposite side at high speed towards the wrong side and hit the bus at Dehrian at 1:15 p.m. One passenger sustained injury in the accident. The truck driver ran away from the spot. hAn intimation of the accident was given to the Police. ASI Raffo gDass (PW-8) went to the spot and recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW-2/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-6/A) was registered. ASI Raffo Dass (PW-8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-8/A). Ashwani Kumar (PW-10) took the photographs of the spot (Ext. A1 to Ext. A6) whose negatives are Ext.A7 to Ext. A12. Kashmir Singh (PW2) produced the documents of the bus, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-1/A). ASI Raffo Dass (PW-8) seized the truck bearing registration No. HP-51B-0619 vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). An application (Ext.PW8/B) was filed for the medical examination of the injured Kishori Lal. His medical examination was conducted, and multiple injuries were found on his person. MLC (Ext.PA) was issued. Dev Raj (PW-3) examined the bus and truck and found that there was no defect in them, which could have led to the acfcident. He issued reports (Ext.PW-3/A and Ext.PW-3/B). 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 haccusation was put to him for the commission of offences gpunishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and Section

187 of the MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. Chaman Lal (PW-1) produced the documents. Kashmir Singh (PW-2) is the informant. Dev Raj (PW-3) examined the vehicles. Krishan Kumar (PW-4) is an eyewitness. Sushil Kumar (PW-5) is the General Power of Attorney of the owner.

ASI Ved Parkash (PW-6) signed the F.I.R. HHC Sohan Lal (PW- 7) carried the statement to the Police Station. ASI Raffo Dass (PW-8) investigated the matter. Des Raj (PW-9) did not support the prosecution’s case. Ashwani Kumar (PW-10) took the photographs.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He claimed that hte was innocent, and the witnesses deposed falsely against him. He did not produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the pros