Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 629 (HP)

State v. Naseeb Lal

2025-04-04

SUSHIL KUKREJA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sushil Kukreja, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) laying challenge to judgment, dated 11.01.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. whereby the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.06.2001, M.O., SDH Kangra had telephonically informed the Police Station Kangra that a patient with the alleged history of road accident was brought to the hospital. On receiving such information, the police officials proceeded towards the hospital and recorded the statement of Ramesh Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C., who stated that on 12.06.2001, he was going with his associates in a Mahindra Commander Jeep, bearing registration No. PB-06-B-1511, which was being driven by Harbans Lal. When the aforesaid vehicle was about to reach Daulatpur, then at about 3:45 A.M., a Mahindra Pick-up, bearing registration No. HP-19A- 0129 came from the opposite side and hit the vehicle being driven by Harbans Lal. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of accused Nasib Lal, in which, Harbans Lal and Ramesh Kumar suffered injuries. Thereafter, both the injured persons were medically examined and their MLCs were procured, according to which, all the injuries were found to be simple in nature. After completion of all the codal formalities, challan was presented against the accused in the learned trial Court. 3. On finding prima facie case against the accused, notice of accusation was put to him under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC , to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, during trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.01.2011, acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC , hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.01.2011, acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC , hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent/accused and have also gone through the record carefully. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that the learned trial Court has discarded the testimony of prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons in the absence of any proof of enmity and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned for discarding the version of official witnesses. With these submissions, he prayed for setting-aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court and acceptance of the instant appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. 9. At the very outset, it needs to be observed that the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial Court rendering acquittal as an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. In Dhanapal vs. State By Public Prosecutor, Madras , (2009) 10 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “25. The same principle has been followed in Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807 (at pp. 809-10 para 5), wherein the Court said: “5. …It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Which had the advantage of ob- serving the demeanor of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. Which had the advantage of ob- serving the demeanor of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal." 10 . In N. Vijaykumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 687, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him and secondly, the presumption of his innocence is further strengthened by the judgment of his acquittal passed by the trial Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- “20. ……... By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:- (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further rein- forced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.” 11 . In Jafarudheen & Ors . Vs. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further rein- forced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.” 11 . In Jafarudheen & Ors . Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 12. Equally settled is the proposition that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court, when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence, to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court and the expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court, the decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice ( Refer: Girijanandini Devi and Others Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 ). 13 . Therefore, the instant appeal has to be decided in view of the aforesaid settled legal proposition. In the case in hand, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. However, case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-3 Ramesh Kumar (complainant), PW-4 Harbans Lal (driver of the vehicle) and PW-5 Shyam Lal, who was sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle. They all stated that the accused was driving Mahindra Jeep in a high speed, due to which, both the vehicles collided with each other. 14. They all stated that the accused was driving Mahindra Jeep in a high speed, due to which, both the vehicles collided with each other. 14. I have closely scrutinized the entire evidence on record led by the prosecution and from the closure scrutiny thereof, it has become clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The perusal of the site map, Ext. PW-9/A, shows that width of the road where the accident had occurred was 24 feet. The road was wide enough for the easy passage of two big vehicles. The place where the accident had occurred is shown in “mark A” in the site map, which is almost in the middle of the road. The Mahinder Commander Jeep having registration No. PB-06B-1511 is shown overturned at a distance of 20 meters from mark A, whereas, Mahindra Pick-up having registration No. HP-19A-0129 is shown standing on the left side of the road at a distance of 25-30 meters from mark A. One of the tyres of Mahindra Commander Jeep was found lying on the road next to the jeep and no skid marks can be seen on the road. 15. PW-3 Ramesh Kumar admitted in his cross- examination that vehicle No. HP-19A-0129 was on its ascent, whereas, vehicle No. PB-06B-1511 was on its descent. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 admitted that vehicle No. HP-19A-0129 was loaded with vegetables. All the eye witnesses have mentioned that vehicle No. HP-19A-0129 was being driven at a high speed by the accused, however, none of them have specified the speed at which the vehicle was being driven. PW-5 denied that it had rained on the day of incident, however, the said fact has been negated by the photographs placed on record, which show that the road was wet. 16. The perusal of photographs, Exts. P-1 and P-3 show that the vehicle of the accused was standing on the extreme left side of the road and this fact was also acknowledged by PW-7 (photographer) in his cross-examination. None of the eye witnesses deposed that accused hit his vehicle on the wrong side. 16. The perusal of photographs, Exts. P-1 and P-3 show that the vehicle of the accused was standing on the extreme left side of the road and this fact was also acknowledged by PW-7 (photographer) in his cross-examination. None of the eye witnesses deposed that accused hit his vehicle on the wrong side. Merely by deposing that the accused was driving the vehicle in a high speed is not sufficient to prove that he was rash and negligent in his driving as none of the eye witnesses could specify the exact speed at which the vehicle was being driven by the accused. 17. Therefore, in view of the material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant-State has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality, much less, perversity in the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, as such, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back.