IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 369 of 2014 Reserved on: 12.03.2026 Date of Decision: 27.4.2026.

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

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the ApCpellant : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

For the r espondent : Mr Naresh Kaul, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge i The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court). (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 present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences

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

punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that the informant Devinder Singh (PW1) was going to his home on 09.12.2008 on his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-35K-4329. He reached near Sunny Slipper Factory at 5:45 PM, when a Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. HP-38A-8856 came from the opposite side at high speed and hit tuhe motorcycle. The informant fell off the motorcycle and osustained injuries. The accused was driving the Mahindra CBolero at the time of the accident, and the accident occurred due to his negligence. The accused ran away from the spot after the accident. The informant was taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ext.PW8/B) was Hrecorded in the Police Station. ASI Karan Jeet Singh, HC Chain Singh (PW8), Constable Joginder Singh and Constable Munish Kumar had already left for traffic checking vide entry (Ext.PW8/A). They were asked to verify the correctness of the information. HC Chain Singh (PW8) went to the hospital for verification. He filed an application (Ext.PW8/C) for conducting the medical examination of the injured and certifying the fitness of the injured to make the statement. The Medical Officer certified that the injured was fit to make the statement. HC Chain Singh (PW8) recorded the statement of Devinder Singh (PW1) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW6/A) was registered. HC Chain Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. He obtained the treatment summary (Ext.P1) and other documents (Ext.P2 to Ext.P6). He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/D). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP -u38A-8856 and PB-35K-4329 vide memos (Ext.PW3/B ando Ext. PW3/A). Sandeep Sharma (PW4) took the photograpChs (Ext.PW4/A1 to Ext.PW4/A3) whose negatives are Ext.PW4/A4 to Ext.PW4/A6. Narinder Sood (PW2) examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports H(Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW2/B). HC Chain Singh (PW8) recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. After the 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, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 184 of the MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine Hwitnesses to prove its case. Devinder Singh (PW1) is the injured/informant. Narinder Sood (PW2) examined the vehicles. Pawan Kumar (PW3) is an eyewitness. Sandeep Sharma (PW4) and Vinay Kumar (PW5) witnessed various recoveries. Chatter Singh (PW6) signed the FIR. Ajay Singh (PW7) proved that the accused was the driver of the vehicle. Chain Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. Ashok Kumar (PW9) prov