IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 227 of 2014 Reserved on: 17.03.2026 Date of Decision: 27.4.2026.

State of H.P. f ...Appellant Versus Atul Sharma ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the ApCpellant : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

For the r espondent : Mr Ajay Chandel, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge i The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.04.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Dharamshala, 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 Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act). (Parties shall

1 Whether reporters of 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 Hrise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of the IPC and 185 of the MV Act. It was asserted that the informant, Desh Raj (PW1), parked the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01D-0963 on 21.03.2010 at about 9 PM and started making a call to his parents-in-law. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-39B-9898 came at a high speed a nd hit the informant’s vehicle. The driver sped away towards Dharmshala. The informant telephoned Tsering (PW6), who came to the spot with Prithvi Raj (PW4), and other persons. One person told the informant that a vehicle with punctured tyres was parked at some distance. Des Raj, Prithvi Raj and Tsering (PW6) apprehended two persons at a distance of a hundred meters from the place of the accident. The driver identified himself as Atul Sharma, and the person sitting beside him identified himself as Vivek. Both of them were intoxicated. The matter was reported to the police, and an entry was recorded in the police station. ASI Nirmal Dass (PW9) went to the spot and recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW9/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW9/B) was registered. He filed applications (Ext.PW9/C and Ext.PW9/D) for conducting the medical examination of Atul and Vivek. Dr S. Chakarvarthy (PW7) examined Atul Sharma and Vivek and found that they had consumed Alcohol. He collected their blood and urine samples and handed them to the police official accompanying Atul Sharma and Vivek. Hue issued MLCs (Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B). ASI Nirmal Dasso (PW9) visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ext.PW11/CF). The photographs of the spot (Mark P1 to Mark P10) were taken. ASI Nirmal Dass (PW9) seized the vehicles bearing registration Nos. HP-01D-0963 and HP-39B-9898 vide memo (Ext.PW2/A). Shiv Charan (PW8) mechanically examined the Hvehicles and found that there was no defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext.PW8/A and Ext.PW8/B). The blood and urine samples were sent to the SFSL, and the result of analysis (Ext.PW-9/A) was issued, in which it was mentioned that the blood and urine samples of Atul Sharma contained 175.22 mg % and 201.25 mg % proof alcohol, respectively, and the blood and urine samples of Vivek Kumar contained 210.76 mg% and 253.00 mg % alcohol, respectively.

The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The 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 Section 279 of the IPC and 185 of the MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its cas