Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 22.8.2025 vs Ranjeet Singh on 30 August, 2025
2025:HHC:29403 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 410 of 2011 Reserved on: 22.8.2025 .
Date of Decision: 30.08.2025
State of H.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet Singh ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.1.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Nurpur, 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 Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 22025:HHC:29403 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 Ramesh Kumar (since deceased) was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-35A-8808 on 24.3.2002.
Som Ram (PW1) met them on the way, who also boarded the motorcycle. The motorcyclist reached Lower Nagni ahead of the HRTC workshop. The truck bearing registration No. HP-38-6385 was moving ahead of the motorcycle at a high speed. Ramesh attempted to overtake the truck from the left side. The driver of the truck turned the truck towards the workshop. The truck hit the motorcycle. Ramesh Kumar was crushed under the tyres. He succumbed to his injuries. Informant Subhash Kumar and Som Raj also sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. The injured were carried to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. HC Baldev (PW9) recorded the statement of Subhash Kumar (Ex.PW3/A), which were sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW9/A) was registered. HC Baldev filed an application to conduct the medical examination of the injured. Dr. Raman Sharma (PW7) conducted the medical examination of Som Raj and Subhash Kumar and ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:29403 found that they had suffered multiple injuries. He issued MLCs (Ex.PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B). Dr. Rajiv Sehgal (PW8) conducted subsequent treatment of Som Raj, who found that Som Raj had .
sustained simple and grievous injuries. He issued MLC (Ex.PW8/A). HC Baldev conducted the inquest on the dead body and issued a report (Ex.PW9/B). The postmortem examination of Ramesh Kumar was conducted by Dr. Raman Sharma (PW7), who found that the patient had died due to the crush injury of the brain, which could have been caused due to the motor vehicle accident. He issued the postmortem report (Ex.PW7/C). HC Baldev visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW9/C). He seized the truck and motorcycle vide seizure memos (Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E), respectively. Photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P6) whose negatives are Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 were taken. Ravinder Singh (PW10) conducted the mechanical examination of the truck and motorcycle and found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicles which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B). The statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 42025:HHC:29403
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 304-A of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to prove its case. Som Raj (PW1), Puran Chand (PW2) and Subhash Kumar (PW3) are the eyewitnesses. Ganesh Mahajan (PW4) is the brother of the deceased. Gagan Singh (PW5) did not support the prosecution's case. Rajinder (PW6) took the photographs. Dr. Raman Sharma (PW7) and Dr. Rajiv Sehgal (PW8) conducted the medical examination of the injured. HC Baldev (PW9) conducted the investigation. Ravinder Singh (PW10) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicles. Ram Lal (PW11) is the witness to the seizure memo. Rakesh Kohli (PW12) is the owner of the truck. SI Karam Chand (PW13) signed the FIR.
5. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that he was not driving the vehicle, and he was falsely implicated.
Initially, he stated that he wanted to lead defence evidence, but ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:29403 subsequently made a statement that he did not want to lead any defence evidence.
6. The learned Trial Court held that the deceased was .
overtaking the truck from the left side. Subhash Kumar (PW3) admitted that the truck was being driven at a slow speed. The Investigating Officer, HC Baldev Singh (PW9), admitted that the motorcycle was towards the left side of the truck and was crushed when the truck turned towards its left to enter the workshop. The truck driver could not have noticed the motorcycle being driven towards the left side. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Hence, the accused was acquitted.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the instant appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence from its proper perspective. Som Raj (PW1) and Puran Chand (PW2) supported the prosecution's case. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that the negligence of the deceased led to the accident. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the judgment of the learned Trial Court be set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 62025:HHC:29403
8. I have heard Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant-State and Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.
.
9. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant-State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. It was duly proved on record that the accused was driving the truck at a high speed, and he turned the truck towards its left side, crushing the motorcycle under the tyres of the truck. The accident led to the death of Ramesh Kumar. Som Raj (PW1) sustained grievous injuries, and informant Subhash Chand (PW3) sustained simple injuries in the accident. Learned Trial Court had not considered the evidence from its proper perspective. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
10. Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that there were various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It was specifically stated in the FIR that the motorcycle overtook the truck from the left side. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the driver of the truck could not have noticed the motorcycle ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 7 2025:HHC:29403 overtaking the truck from its left side. This was a reasonable view taken by the learned Trial Court, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view taken by the learned Trial .
Court while deciding the appeal against acquittal. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.
11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading of evidence, omission to consider the material evidence and no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. It was observed:
"11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:29403 State for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471: (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the .
field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325], SCC p. 432, para 42) '42. From the above decisions, in our considered r view, the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court, on the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and law.
(3) Various expressions, such as "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc., are not intended to curtail the extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal than to curtail the power of ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 9 2025:HHC:29403 the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in the case of acquittal, there is a 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 reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581: (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748], this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 8)
8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence.
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:29403 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other .
conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity.
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
13. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. It was specifically asserted in the statement (Ex.PW3/A) that Ramesh Kumar (deceased) attempted to overtake the truck from the left side. The informant, Subhash Kumar (PW3), stated in his cross-examination that the ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:29403 motorcyclist was overtaking the truck from the left side. His statement is also as per the site plan (Ex.PW9/C), wherein the truck has turned towards the left side and the motorcycle was .
crushed under its tyres. The truck turning towards its left side could only have crushed the motorcycle travelling on its left and not the right side. Therefore, it was duly established on record that the motorcyclist was overtaking the truck from its left side.
15. The Central Government has framed the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, to regulate the movement of traffic. Rule 4 provides that a driver of the motorcycle shall pass to the right of the truck proceeding in the same direction as himself, except as provided in Rule 5. Rule 5 provides that when the driver has indicated his intention to turn to the right, the driver may pass from the left. Thus, the combined effect of these two rules is that a driver can pass only from the right side of the vehicle proceeding in the same direction, except when the vehicle going ahead is turning towards its right. This ensures that the driver can easily notice other vehicles overtaking his vehicle, and can ensure smooth overtaking. All the vehicles coming from the opposite side are also passing towards his right side. Hence, the overtaking vehicle is aware of the other vehicles coming from the ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:29403 opposite side. Learned Trial Court had rightly pointed out that when the vehicle is overtaking from the left, it is not possible for the driver to know about it, especially in the case of a big vehicle .
like a truck when it is being overtaken by a small vehicle like a motorcycle.
16. Thus, the proximate cause of the accident was the breach of Rule 4 of the Rules of the Road Regulation. The prosecution has failed to establish the breach of any rules or statute by the accused, which led to the accident. Thus, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while holding that the deceased Ramesh Kumar was negligent in driving the motorcycle, and his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. Hence, no interference is required with the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court.
17. No other point was urged.
18. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.
19. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondent/accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:29403 amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this .
judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
20. Records be sent back forthwith along with a copy of of.
r to the judgment. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th August 2025 (Chander) ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:22:40 :::CIS