Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 11Th March vs State Of H.P on 6 June, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2025:HHC:18767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
Criminal Appeal No. : 3 of 2011
Reserved on : 11th March, 2025
Decided on : 06th June, 2025
Sandeep Kumar ... Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
_____________________________ _____________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
___________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. AGs with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy.A.G., for the respondentState.
Virender Singh, Judge Appellant Sandeep Kumar has preferred the present appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr. P.C.'), against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 21.12.2010, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P.(hereinafter 2 2025:HHC:18767 referred to as 'the Trial Court'), in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2010, titled as, 'State of H.P. versus Sandeep Kumar'.
2. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the appellant was convicted for the offence, punishable under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'), and was sentenced, in the following terms:
i) For the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, the convict has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 1 ½ years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.
10,000. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of three months.
ii) For the offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V. Act, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/
iii) For the offence punishable under Section 196 of M.V. Act, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/. 3 For the sake of convenience, appellant herein is referred to, in the same manner, in which, he was referred to, by the learned trial Court.
4. Brief facts leading to filing the present petition, as borne out from the record of the case, may be summed up, as under:
3 2025:HHC:18767
5. Police of Police Station, Nadaun has filed the charge sheet, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, on the ground that on 8.6.2010, during night time, some unknown person, had telephonically informed that on the link road, leading to SDM, Office, Nadaun, one person was crushed by a Maruti Van and the said person got stuck underneath the said vehicle and seems to have died, upon which, the Dy. S.P., alongwith S.I. Jamer Singh and other police officials reached at the spot. On the spot, on the SDM Office turn, one Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP01H0431 was lying parked there and one person was lying underneath it. The head of said person was found outside of the van towards left side and legs were found to be stuck in the excel of the van.
5.1 As per the observation on the spot, it was found that driver of the Maruti Van had crushed the said person. On the spot, tyre marks upto the distance of 5 feet were also found. On the spot, it was also found that driver of the vehicle dragged the deseased for a distance of about 810 feet. The name of the driver was found to be Sandeep Kumar and name of the deceased was found to be Rajinder Minhas. The act of the driver was found to be an offence, under 4 2025:HHC:18767 Section 304 IPC. As such, the FIR has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The physical evidence, so collected from the spot, was also taken into possession and thereafter, the accused was arrested on 9.6.2010. 5.2 At the instance of accused, pieces of mirror were taken into possession. One stick was also taken into possession. The stick was identified to be the stick of deceased Rajinder Minhas, by his employee, Daler Singh. Blood samples of the accused were collected and as per the MLC, it was found that accused had consumed liquor. The vehicle, involved in the accident, was also taken into possession and the physical evidence, so collected, was also taken into possession. During police custody, on 12.06.2010, the accused made a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and got recovered his mobile phone (Nokia), which, he allegedly had thrown away. The said mobile was taken into possession. As per the report of the RFSL, alcohol was found in the blood samples and urine samples of the accused.
5.3 On the basis of above facts, charge sheet against the accused, for the commission of offences, under 5 2025:HHC:18767 Section 304 IPC and Sections 181 and 196 M.V. Act was filed in the competent Court of law. The said case was committed to the Court of Sessions and from there, the same was assigned to the learned trial Court.
6. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C., the learned trial Court found a primafacie case, for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 304 IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of M.V. Act. As such, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence, in order to substantiate the charges, framed against the accused, as such, the prosecution has examined, as many as, 28 witnesses, in this case.
7. After closure of evidence of the prosecution, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Accused has denied the entire case of the prosecution and taken the defence that he is innocent person. However, he has not led any evidence in his defence.
8. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned PP, as well as, learned counsel for the accused, convicted accused 6 2025:HHC:18767 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 A IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the M.V. Act, as referred to above.
9. Against the said judgment of conviction, present appeal has been preferred, assailing the judgment of conviction, on the ground that judgment of conviction and order of sentence is against the facts, as well as, law, involved in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. According to the accused, prosecution could not adduce cogent or reliable evidence to connect the accused with the crime in question. As per the accused, there is no prosecution witness, who had stated that accused was driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, nor he was noticed by anyone at the spot. Major and material contradictions are stated to have been discarded by the learned trial Court.
11. The findings of the learned trial Court have further been assailed on the ground that judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, are based on surmises and conjectures.
12. The accused has further pleaded that the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted him, on the statements of PW9 Jagdish Lal Soni, who was the previous owner of the 7 2025:HHC:18767 vehicle, and, PW3 Sanjeev Kumar, who was the driver, employed by the accused, during relevant time. He has termed both the aforesaid witnesses to be the interested witnesses. Even otherwise, these two witnesses have not deposed that they had seen the accused driving the vehicle in question in rash or negligent manner. According to him, at the relevant time, the vehicle in question was in the custody of Sanjeev Kumar.
13. On the basis of grounds of appeal, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal, by setting aside the judgment of conviction, passed by the learned trial Court and to acquit the accused from the offences, for which, he has been convicted by the learned trial Court.
14. The accused, in the present case, has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 304 IPC and Sections 181 and 196 M.V. Act and has been sentenced, as referred to above. The said findings have been assailed, by way of the present appeal, before this Court.
15. In order to decide the controversy, involved in the present case, it will be apt, for this Court, to discuss the evidence, so adduced by the prosecution, before the learned trial Court.
8 2025:HHC:18767
16. Dr. Puneet Niyar, has been examined by the prosecution, as PW1 to prove the charges, framed against the accused. As per his version, on 8.06.2010, One Ashok had come to the house of this witness, at about 10.30 p.m. Said Ashok was employed as Pharmacist in the clinic of Dr. Minhas. Ashok told him that wife of Dr. Minhas, had received a telephonic call that someone is quarrelling/fighting with Dr. Minhas at Nadaun Bridge. Ashok requested him to accompany him to visit the spot. Thereafter, they both had reached at Nadaun Bridge on motorcycle. Meanwhile, Mrs. Minhas, accompanied by one Parvesh Jamwal had reached on the spot. No one was found on the Nadaun/Beas Bridge. Search was made for Dr. Minhas, but, he was not found there. They had inquired from one Dhabewala, who has admitted that he has seen Dr. Minhas crossing his Dhaba, but, he has not seen him while returning back. Thereafter, they noticed the police van going downward. They had followed the police van. Mrs. Minhas, also sat with this witness on his motorcycle. The police party visited labour chowk.
17. On being asked, one Police Constable told that one person had been crushed under the vehicle. Mrs. Minhas, 9 2025:HHC:18767 alighted down from the motorcycle and rushed towards the vehicle, under which, the person was crushed. She identified the the person crushed under the vehicle as her husband Dr. Minhas. The police clicked the photographs of the spot.
18. As per the further deposition of this witness, on 9.6.2010, she was associated in the investigation, along with Delel Singh, and accused Sandeep Kumar had disclosed to the police that he had hit Dr. Minhas on the Bridge with his vehicle.
19. According to this witness, at the instance of accused, police had recovered broken piece of window glass of the vehicle. One stick was also lying there, which, according to this witness, was stick of Dr. Minhas. The above articles were taken into possession. He has identified those articles.
20. On 10.06.2010, this witness was again associated in the investigation and the spot was visited. Forensic experts were also there. Police had also taken into possession the samples of earth, earth soiled with blood and sample of stone from the place. On 10.06.2010, the vehicle was also taken to service station. From the spot, shirt, blood stains and hairs, were also collected. On 11.06.2010, accused has handed 10 2025:HHC:18767 over his clothes to the police, which were also taken into possession. He has identified the stick used by Dr. Minhas, as Ex.P3.
21. In the crossexamination, this witness has deposed that he reached at Beas Bridge, between 10.3011.00 p.m. He had also inquired from Mrs. Minhas, about the name of the person, who had made a call to her. According to him, when, he inquired from Mrs. Minhas, she had disclosed that she had received a call from a girl, who has disclosed the factum of fight, which had taken place at Beas Bridge, with her husband. Call was received on land line phone. This witness has noticed the broken piece of glass on the side of the dead body.
22. Learned defence counsel has successfully confronted this witness, with regard to the improvements made by him about the fact that accused made statement to the police that his vehicle had crushed the deceased at Beas Bridge, whereas, in his statement MarkD1, these facts have not been recorded. Similarly, learned defence counsel has confronted this witness with regard to the improvements made by him, in his examinationinchief and he could not explain these improvements.
11 2025:HHC:18767
23. According to this witness, the dead body was found lying about 500600 yards from Beas Bridge, in the mud. This witness had not seen the accused prior to the incident. Accused is stated to be having no animosity with Dr. Minhas.
24. Lastly, this witness has admitted that neither he has seen accused driving the vehicle nor has he seen the accident. As such, he has fairly admitted that he is unable to say whether it was a case of murder or the accident. Lastly, he has admitted that stick was found on the Beas bridge, whereas, dead body was found 600 yards away from that place.
25. PW3, Sanjeev Kumar was employed as driver of accused. According to him, on 8.6.2010, he had dropped passengers at village Kitpal, in vehicle No.HP010431. On that day at about 9.00 p.m., when, this witness was taking dinner in the Dhaba of accused situated at Bus Stand Nadaun and the vehicle in question was parked outside the Dhaba, then, accused had asked him to hand over the keys of the vehicle, as the accused had to go to his maternal grand mother's home. After half an hour, this witness received a telephonic call from accused that the taxi had been stuck in mud at Labour Chowk. Accused requested him to come to 12 2025:HHC:18767 the spot, along with Rajiv. Rajiv was previous registered owner of the said vehicle and had sold the same to the accused. Consequently, they both had reached at labour chowk and found that the vehicle was stuck in mud.
26. This witness has further deposed that when, he, along with Rajiv, reached at the spot, then, accused told them that one person is under the Taxi and had died. Thereafter, accused suggested that let the dead body be thrown in river Beas, upon which, this witness has told that he will not become party to the crime and thereafter, he has suggested the accused to report the matter to the police. Thereafter, they had gone to Dhaba of accused at Bus Stand Nadaun and told the brother of the accused that they are going to Police Station, upon which, accused had agreed to lodge report, in the Police Station. All the three had gone to police Station. He and Rajiv had not gone inside the Police Station, whereas, accused had reported the matter to the Police.
27. In the crossexamination, this witness has again reiterated that the accused had confessed to the police that an accident had taken place. He has also admitted that accused had disclosed to the police that deceased was hit at 13 2025:HHC:18767 Beas Bridge and again stated that accused had disclosed to him that deceased was hit by some vehicle at Beas Bridge. This witness is not aware about as to how the accident in question had taken place. He has further admitted that accused had immediately agreed to report the matter to the police.
28. Lastly, this witness has admitted that he is of the opinion that it was a case of accident as there was heavy mud on the spot and there were fair chances of the vehicle skidding on the road.
29. PW5, Parvesh Kumar Jamwal, has deposed that on 8.6.2010, at about 10.0010.30 p.m., he was present at his home. Mrs. Meera Minhas, came to him and told that her husband had gone towards Beas Bridge for evening walk and there, he had fight with taxi driver. She has requested him to accompany her. She had also told this witness that she had received a telephonic call to this effect. Thereafter, this witness, along with Mrs. Minhas, had gone in the search of Dr. Minhas, but, they could not find Dr. Minhas. Thereafter, Mrs. Minhas, inquired about the whereabouts of Dr. Minhas from Dhabewala. Thereafter, they again went to Bus Stand, where Dr. Niyar also met them, who was also searching for 14 2025:HHC:18767 Dr. Minhas. Thereafter, they noticed that a police van crossed from that place and the police van stopped at labour chowk, where vehicle No.HP010431 and dead body of Dr. Minhas was lying under the said vehicle on the left side.
30. This witness had not seen the driver of the said van. Front mirror of the van was found broken and there as a dent on the front portion of the roof of the van. Tyre marks were also visible on the mud. According to him, it seems that the driver had attempted to drive the same in first and reverse gear, a number of times. The dead body of Dr. Minhas, was soiled with mud. Lastly, he had deposed that he had not seen the incident and had noticed, the dead body under the van.
31. In the crossexamination, this witness had deposed that they had reached at Beas Bridge at 10.30 10.35 p.m. On inquiry, Mrs. Meera Minhas told that she had received a telephonic call from one lady. At around 10.35 p.m., they inquired from Dhabewala regarding whereabouts of Dr. Minhas. In addition to this, they had also inquired from the chowkidar. This witness has noticed the personal belongings of Dr. Minhas on the spot.
15 2025:HHC:18767
32. PW6, Ved Prakash, has not supported the case of the prosecution, as such, has been declared hostile.
33. PW7, Ashok Kumar, has deposed that on 8.6.2010, at about 10.30 p.m., Mrs. Minhas, came to the Hospital, namely, Shakuntla Memorial Hospital, Nadaun and told him that she had received a call about the quarrel, which had taken place with Dr. Minhas, at Beas Bridge. She had asked this witness to call Dr. Puneet Niyar. Thereafter, Dr. Niyar, along with him had gone to spot on the bike, however, he could not find Dr. Minhas.
34. According to this witness, Dhabewala was inquired, who feigned his ignorance. Thereafter, they had gone to labour chowk. On the spot, they noticed one van parked there. The police with the help of search light noticed one dead body lying under the van. The said dead body was identified by this witness as Dr. Minhas. The dead body was soiled with mud. The clothes of Dr. Minhas were torn off. Tyre impressions were also there on the clothes.
35. According to this witness, after observation of the spot, it appears that the vehicle was driven forward and reverse. He has further deposed that on 12.06.2010, he visited Police Station Nadaun, where accused, was in police 16 2025:HHC:18767 custody, who had disclosed that he can point out the place where he had thrown the mobile of Dr. Minhas. The said statement was signed by this witness and thereafter, the accused had got recovered the mobile phone of Dr. Minhas, which was also taken into possession and he has identified the mobile as Ex.P9.
36. In the crossexamination, this witness has disclosed that mobile number of Dr. Minhas was 9418032132. This witness has also seen the accused for the first time in the Police Station. The accused was having no animosity with Dr. Minhas. According to this witness, he has no knowledge as to how Dr. Minhas had died.
37. PW8, is Mrs. Meera Minhas. According to her, on 8.6.2010, her husband had left the home towards Beas Bridge for evening walk. At about 10.30 p.m., she received a call from one lady Suman, calling her to come to Beas Bridge as some fight had taken place there with her husband and requested her to save him, upon which, this witness got perplexed and thereafter, she had firstly tried to call Dr. Niyar, their family friend, but, failed to call due to weak eye sight. Thereafter, she had gone to ground floor and asked pharmacist Ashok to get up. This witness had told him to 17 2025:HHC:18767 visit the house of Dr. Niyar and told him about the facts. Thereafter, Advocate Jamwal was also informed and he was requested to accompany her to Beas Bridge. Thereafter, they had reached at the spot. Dr. Minhas was not found there. Whereabouts of Dr. Minhas were inquired from one Dhabewala, however, he had feigned his ignorance. In the meanwhile, Dr. Niyar also reached there, who also tried to find out Dr. Minhas.
38. This witness has further deposed that the persons, who were present at Pattan Bazaar, were also inquired about Dr. Minhas, but, nothing was told by them. Thereafter, they had noticed the police van crossing from there. They had followed the said van and reached at the spot i.e. SDM office, road. On inquiry, the police told this witness that one van is parked there and a person had been crushed under the same. White van was found to be stuck in the mud. This witness has noticed the dead body of her husband. The dead body was soiled with mud. According to her, it appears that he was crushed under the tyre of the van. According to her, tyre marks of the van were visible on the spot and according to her, it appears that her husband was crushed repeatedly, under the tyre of the van.
18 2025:HHC:18767
39. In the crossexamination, this witness has deposed that police was already there on the spot. Sumna, employee of Cooperative Bank made call. According to her, Sumna had come to mourn the death of her husband. On being asked, she told that she was talking to Dr. Minhas, in connection with her ailment. Statement of Sumna was not recorded by the Police, in her presence. This witness has seen the accused for the first time in the Court. There was no animosity between her husband and the accused.
40. PW9 Jagdish Lal has sold his vehicle bearing registration No.HP01H0431, on 10.5.2010 to accused Sandeep Kumar, vide agreement Ex.PW9/A. He has further clarified that since the vehicle was financed, as such, the Registration Certificate was not transferred in the name of acused Sandeep Kumar. This witness has not been cross examined by the learned defence counsel.
41. PW14, Kishori Lal, has deposed that at the relevant time, he was running Dhaba at Labour Chowk, Nadaun. According to him, on 8.6.2010, at about 10.00 p.m., he had gone to his cow shed to feed his cattle there. He had heard sound of a motor vehicle and according to him, it looked that vehicle was intrapped in mud and thereafter, he visited the 19 2025:HHC:18767 spot. Three persons were standing on the road. However, this witness has not identified the accused as the person, who was present there. As such, he was declared hostile by the Police. However, according to his crossexamination, he has admitted that one Mahindro Devi also came to his house and told that one person was crushed under the vehicle.
42. PW17 Vijender Jain @ Bitta, has deposed that he, along with Mahindro Devi and Kishori Lal, had gone to the spot and found that one van was stuck in the thick mud and a man was found lying under the van. The van was having registration No.431 taxi number. Thereafter, the police were informed. In the crossexamination, this witness, has stated that it was a case of accident.
43. PW19 Dr. Rakesh Dhiman, has conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: "1. Grazed abrasion 15 x 10 cm on left temporo parietal area extending from fore head upto left temporal area (above the Pinna), hair were crushed and, reddish.
2. Grazed abrasion 9 x 5 cm on occipital area with hair crushed and wound was reddish.
3. Contusion 4 x 3 cm on right side fore head and was reddish and 3 cm above the eye brow.
20 2025:HHC:18767
4. Grazed abrasion 14 x 4 cm on right side of face extending from chin to the area just above right pinna and was reddish.
5. Grazed abrasion 6 x 3 cm on right side of chest extending upto the neck obliquely placed and was reddish.
6. Grazed abrasion 18 x 9 cm on right axilla involving inner aspect of right arm and reddish.
7. 8 x 7 cm grazed abrasion on right shoulder and was reddish.
8. Grazed abrasion x 45 x 12 cm on right arm, pesterior aspect and reddish.
9. Grazed abrasion 14 x 6 cm on right forearm around wrist on posterior aspect and reddish.
10. Grazed abrasion 30 x 21 cm on upper part of back right side extending from mid line to the axilla and was reddish.
11. Crazed abrasion 29 x 15 cm on right lumber region extending upto right hip and a punctured wound in the centre measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm and reddish.
12. 5 x 7 cm grazed abrasion on lateral aspect of right thigh and reddish.
13. Grazed abrasion 15 x 6 cm on right leg lateral side and 3 cm below knee and was reddish.
14. Grazed abrasion 16 x 15 cm on left knee with singeing of hard present and base was yellowish and dark and reddish in three sides.
15. Grazed abrasion 15 x 2 cm on right side chest, 3 cm lateral from nipple and reddish."
44. According to his final opinion, the deceased died due to head injury.
21 2025:HHC:18767
45. PW22 Preeti Sharma, deposed that on 8.6.2010, Dr. Minhas, had called her at about 9.45 p.m. as she was not feeling well on that day. She has visited Dr. Minhas, at his clinic, during day time. Dr. Minhas had called her from his mobile phone. This witness had talked to him for about 57 minutes. All of a sudden, his voice disrupted and the sound of some vehicle was being heard by her, but, the said sound was not audible. She remained under the impression that Dr. Minhas might be talking with someone. Despite repeated calls to him, no response was given. She has also observed that it was noise of movement of vehicle. She has observed that vehicle was moving and the vehicle had stopped somewhere.
45. This witness has further deposed that she remained under the impression that some patient was taken by the doctor to his hospital. On the basis of the sound, she was under the impression that the vehicle was stopped and somebody had alighted down from the vehicle on water or mud. Thereafter, she had heard the voice of some lady that where he was going, upon which somebody has answered that he had called some persons. From the above facts, this 22 2025:HHC:18767 witness has observed that it was not hospital. Thereafter, she had switched off her phone.
46. Thereafter, this witness had tried to contact Dr. Minhas, from her another number, but, no one had responded. She has further deposed that on repeated calls on the mobile number of Dr. Minhas, no one had picked up the calls. Repeatedly, she tried the number and one person responded, however, it was cut and again she called on the said number. She had requested that she want to talk to Dr. Minhas, however, this witness had heard that some person was saying to pick up and push from the Bridge, because it was a night time. Thereafter, this wintess narrated all the facts to her friend Suman, with a request to make a call to the house of Dr. Minhas. Thereafter, her friend Suman had called at the house of Dr. Minhas and the said call was attended by Mrs. Minhas. Her friend told Mrs. Minhas that some quarrel had taken place with her husband and plan was being made to throw him from the bridge.
47. According to the crossexamination of this witness, Dr. Minhas has not disclosed to him that some quarrel had taken place. This witness has not disclosed anything to her father as her parents were worried about her health. Dr. 23 2025:HHC:18767 Minhas has not disclosed to her that he was at Nadaun Bridge, nor told her about any quarrel.
48. PW23 Suman Thakur, disclosed that she along with Preeti Sharma were residing in a rental accommodation at Hamirpur. At the relevant time, on 8.6.2010, at about 9.40 p.m. her roommate, Preeti Sharma, were talking to Dr. Minhas. Thereafter, Preeti Sharma, told her that something had happened to Dr. Minhas, as some quarrel had taken place with Dr. Minhas, so his family is to be informed. This witness called from her cell phone No.9418497299 to the land line number 232133. The said call was attended by Mrs. Minhas, to whom the entire facts were narrated.
49. This witness had admitted that Preeti Sharma, had told her about the quarrel. Parents of Preeti Sharma, had visited Hamirpur at about 11.30 p.m., on the call of this witness, as Preeti Sharma was not feeling well. Father of Preeti Sharma, had not contacted the family of Dr. Minhas at Nadaun.
50. PW25 Sagar Chand, is the I.O. According to him, on 8.6.2010, at about 11.15 p.m., he was told by MHC that some unknown person had telephoned that at SDM Chowk, Nadaun, one person was lying in unconscious condition 24 2025:HHC:18767 under vehicle HP01H0431, upon which, matter was recorded in Rapat No.43/A. Thereafter, this witness had proceeded towards the spot, along with supporting staff. On the spot, this witness had noticed that Vehicle No.HP01H 0431, was parked on the link road of SDM Chowk. With the help of torch light, this witness has noticed that a human body was lying under the van. Body was crushed and soiled with mud and blood. Meanwhile, two scooterists reached on the spot, one women was a pillion rider. Dr. Niyar had also come to the spot, who identified the dead body as of Dr. Minhas.
51. On inspection of the spot, this witness found that rear left back tyre of the van was stuck in trench. According to this witness, there were tyre marks on the dead body, which were visible on the spot. As per the factual position on the spot, conditions of the body and that of the van; it appears to be case of culpable homicide, on the part of the driver of the van, upon which, report Ex.PW25/B, was prepared and FIR Ex.PW25/C, was registered. Photographs Ex.PW25/D1 to PW25/D6, were clicked. He has also deposed about the investigation, which was conducted by him on the spot.
25 2025:HHC:18767
52. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that in his investigation, it was not found that some quarrel had taken place on the spot. Even, Mrs. Minhas did not told him about the quarrel. He has further admitted that it was his final conclusion that somebody was driving the van in a fast speed and had hit Dr. Minhas. Reference of Preeti Sharma, was not found in his investigation. However, according to this witness, Dr. Niyar had not told him that Preeti is aware of the certain facts and the name of Suman was not referred in the statement of Dr. Puneet Niyar. He has also admitted that accident had taken place at the center of the Bridge, but, self stated that after hitting, the body fell on the roof of the van and the same was driven upto SDM Chowk.
53. PW27, Inspector Jasbir Singh, is also the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that on 11.06.2010, the investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He has recorded the statements of Smt. Meera Minhas Rajeev Soni and Sanjeev Kumar. On 12.06.2010, accused Sandeep Kumar made a disclosure statement, in the presence of Ashok Kumar and Manoj Kumar that he had thrown the mobile on the intervening night of 8 th and 9th 26 2025:HHC:18767 June, 2010, under the heap of bamboo, from where, he could get recovered the same. The said statement is Ex.PW7/A. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, accused got recovered the mobile phone, from the heap of the bamboo, which was identified by Ashok Kumar as the mobile phone of Dr. Minhas. Thereafter, the same was taken into possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, site plan Ex.PW 27/A was prepared on the spot. On 13.06.2010, the vehicle involved in the accident was get mechanically examined from Parshotam Lal, Retd. Mechanic and his report is Ex.PW 10/A. On 14.04.2010, tyre impression of the rear tyre of left side of van on the piece of cloth by using blue ink over the tyre was obtained. The cloth, thereafter, was put into a sealed parcel and taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PW 15/A. From the spot, pieces of windowpane were also taken into possession. Thereafter, this witness has obtained the CDRs, which were Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/G. After receipt of the report from RFSL, this witness has prepared the chargesheet.
54. In the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that during investigation, motive for commission of offence could not be ascertained. He has admitted that during the 27 2025:HHC:18767 investigation, it was revealed that the deceased was hit by the vehicle. According to him, it was a case of conscious driving. Self stated that the accused had the knowledge that some person was hit by the van. This has been disclosed by the witness on the basis of the FIR and according to him, the van was being driven at a high speed, when the driver of the van negotiated the curve, it struck with a person. It was also found that deceased had a talk with one Preeti. Preeti has disclosed to him that she has presumption that somebody had a fight with Dr. Minhas. According to this witness, this opinion has been made on the basis of the fact that said Preeti has presumed that somebody had stated that body of Dr. Minhas be thrown in the Beas River. He has further admitted that Suman has conveyed to Mrs. Minhas that some fight had taken place with her husband, so she should proceed to Beas Bridge. The conversation of Suman was not proved during the investigation. He has categorically stated that her presumption regarding quarrel was wrong.
55. Other evidence, which has been adduced by the prosecution, is with regard to the link evidence.
56. This is the entire evidence.
28 2025:HHC:18767
57. After closure of the evidence, when the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, he has denied the entire case of the prosecution and took the defence that he is innocent person and the witnesses had falsely deposed against him. However, he has not led any evidence in his defence.
58. The accused, in the present case, although, has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of M.V. Act, however, he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 304A of IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of M.V. Act. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. As such, the controversy involved, in the present case, is with regard to the fact as to whether the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that Dr. Minhas has sustained fatal injuries, in a motor vehicle accident, involving the vehicle being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner.
29 2025:HHC:18767
59. From the uncontroverted testimony of PW9, it has been proved in this case that the vehicle in question, was purchased by accused Sandeep Kumar on 10.5.2010, from PW9, vide agreement Ex.PW9/A.
60. PW3, Sanjeev Kumar, who, as per the prosecution case was employed as driver by accused, while appearing in the witnessbox, as PW3, has categorically stated that after dropping a passenger at village Kitpal, he returned back to Nadaun at about 88.15 p.m. At about 9.00 p.m., when he was having his dinner in the Dhaba of accused, accused had asked him to hand over the keys of the vehicle, as, he intended to go to his grandmother's home. After half an hour, this witness has received a telephonic call from accused that taxi has been stuck in mud at Labour Chowk and accused also requested him to come along with Rajeev on Scooter, as, Rajeev was previous owner of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, both of them had gone to Labour Chowk, where, according to PW3, taxi was found stuck in mud. They had also noticed a dead body lying under the vehicle.
61. From the evidence of this witness, it is proved that the vehicle in question, at the relevant time, was being driven 30 2025:HHC:18767 by accused and when PW3, along with Rajeev, reached at the spot, then they, not only, noticed the vehicle stuck in the mud, but also, noticed a dead body under the vehicle, in question.
62. From the above facts, learned trial Court, in the present case, has rightly concluded that the accident in question had taken place on 8.6.2010, involving vehicle No.HP01H0431, in which, Dr. Minhas has sustained fatal injuries.
63. The evidence of the doctor, who has conducted the postmortem examination, clearly opined that the cause of death was due to head injury.
64. Since the accused was in exclusive control over the vehicle in question, underneath which, dead body of Dr. Minhas was found, as such, in the absence of any explanation, as to how the dead body of Dr. Minhas was found underneath the vehicle, along with crush marks, over it, the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court does not require any interference, by this Court.
65. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, is upheld. Bail bonds discharged.
31 2025:HHC:18767
66. Pending application (s), if any, are also disposed of.
67. Record be sent down.
(Virender Singh) 06.06.2025 (Kalpana/ps) Judge