IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 145 of 2014 Reserved on: 20.3.2026 Date of Decision: 8.5.2026.

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

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Appellant : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Forh the Respondent : Ms Yogita Dutta, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.11.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

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

(The 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 rHise 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 sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Mahaveer Singh (PW1), was posted as a Conductor in Haryana roadways. He was deputed with driver Kulveer (PW2) on a bus bearing Registration No. HR-55B-7409 from Gurgaon to Baijnath. The bus reached near Hatwas Petrol Pump w hen a Tourist bus bearing Registration No. RJ-31P-0049 came from the opposite side at high speed and hit the Haryana roadways bus. Kulveer and the passengers sustained injuries in the accident. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus bearing Registration No. RJ-31P-0049. The driver revealed his name as Iqbal Singh. The matter was reported to the police, and the police visited the spot. Mahaveer Singh’s statement (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded, which was sent to the Police Station, where an FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered. Mohinder Gill (PW7) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW7/B). He seized the bus bearing Registration No. HR-55B-7409 vide memo (Ex.PW7/F) and bus bearing Registration No. RJ-31P-0049 vide mémo (Ex.PW7/G). He seized the documents of the bus bearing Registration No. RJ-31P-0049 vide mémo (Ex.PW7/E). HC Rajinder Kumar (PW5) conducted mechanical examination of the buses and found no defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ex.PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B). The medical examinationu of the injured were conducted, and the MLCs (Ex.PA too Ex.PG) were obtained. The statements of witnesses Cwere recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was prepared and filed before the Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to prove its case. Mahaveer Singh (PW1) is the informant. Kulbeer Singh (PW2) was driving the Haryana Roadways Bus. Hari Singh (PW3), Rahul Acharya (PW4), Dharam Pal (PW10), and Gaurav (PW12) were travelling in the bus. HC Rajinder Kumar (PW5) conducted a mechanical examination of the buses. Gopal Dass (PW6) took the photographs. SI Mohinder Gill (PW7) investigated the matter. HC Suresh Kumar (PW8) carried the rukka to the Police Station. Ram Kumar (PW9), Harish Kumar (PW10), SI Bhoop Suingh (PW13), and Shamay Singh (PW15) witnessed the reocoveries. Babu Lal (PW14) is the owner of the bus bearinCg Registration No. RJ-31P-0049.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that the witnesses deposed fals