Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs Karnail Singh on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
( 2025:HHC:7157 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 496 of 2011 Reserved on: 13.03.2025 Decided on: 21.03.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant Versus Karnail Singh ...Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General.
For the respondent: Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") laying challenge to judgment, dated 30.06.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (I), 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) as 'IPC').
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.12.2004 the accused was driving Bus (Jayanti Bus Services), bearing registration No. HP-36-5525, in which, Sanjay Kumar alongwith Sanjay Shukla was also travelling. When the bus reached near Nevia Hotel Gaggal, the accused started driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same while overtaking a Maruti Van, owing to which, the bus collided against the hill and got damaged from front side. In the aforesaid accident, Sanjay Kumar and other persons received injuries. The factum of the accident was informed to police, upon which, H.C. Som Raj, visited Sub Divisional Hospital Kangra and recorded the statement of injured Sanjay Kumar under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Consequently, FIR under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC was registered against the accused. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Prem Chand, who visited the spot, prepared spot map and photographed the spot. The Bus was impounded alongwith its documents and was got mechanically examined. On the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused. After completion of all the codal formalities, 3 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) 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 eight 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 30.06.2011, 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 vice 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 not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective and has wrongly concluded that the 4 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) accident took place due to mechanical failure.He further contended that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the version of Sanjay Shukla and Sanjay Kumar, who were the passengers of the bus and had specifically levelled allegations of rash and negligent driving against the accused. 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 vice 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:-
5 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) "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 or- der 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 rel- atively 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.
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 con- tinues even up to the appellate stage and that the ap- pellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquit- tal."
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 6 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) 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 regard- ing 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 consid- ered 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 pre-
sumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the pre- sumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent un- less 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."
7 ( 2025:HHC:7157 )
11. In Jafarudheen & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the 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 8 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) 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 eight witnesses. However, case of the prosecution mainly rests upon the statements of PW-2 Durga Dass (Motor mechanic), PW-3 Sanjay Shukla, PW-3/A Sanjay Kumar (complainant), PW-4 Joginder Singh and PW-6 S.I. Prem Chand (Investigating Officer). PW-2 Durga Dass, who had mechanically examined the bus in question deposed that he found that the patta of front right side of the bus was broken. He proved his report, Ext. PW-2/A on the record. In cross-examination, he admitted that in case the front patta of the vehicle is broken, the driver loses his control over the vehicle, as steering wheel goes free.
14. PW-3 Sanjay Shukla, who was also a co-passenger in the bus deposed that the accident took place while overtaking 9 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) a Van and the accused was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. In cross-examination, he denied mark 'D' of his statement made before the police, which finds mention of the fact that the bus produced a bang and it appeared that something had broken down.
15. Complainant Sanjay Kumar while appearing in the witness box as PW-3/A, deposed that the accident took place due to rashness and negligence of the accused. In cross- examination, he feigned ignorance to the suggestion that when the bus was stopped, a bang appeared in the bus and it appeared that something had broken. He also feigned ignorance to the suggestion that the accident took place due to breaking of the patta of the bus.
16. PW-4, Joginder Singh deposed that the driver of the bus tried to overtake the van, as a result of which, the bus collided against the hill. In cross-examination, he deposed that his statement was never recorded by the police. He denied that a bang was heard in the bus prior to its collision against the hill.
17. PW-6, Prem Chand, Investigating Officer of the case admitted that the accident took place due to the fact that a car and van came on the spot all of a sudden in front of the moving 10 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) bus and the accused had to turn the vehicle towards its right side to avoid the accident. He also admitted that a bang was heard in the bus as if something had broken.
18. 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. PW-2 Durga Dass (Motor mechanic) had categorically deposed that after examining the bus in question, he found that Patta of the front right side of the bus was broken and in cross-examination, he admitted that in case, the front patta of the vehicle is broken, the driver loses control over the vehicle, as steering wheel goes free. Complainant Sanjay Kumar, who appeared in the witness box as PW-3/A, during his cross- examination, had failed to withstand the test of cross- examination and pleaded ignorance to the defence of the accused. In cross-examination, PW-3 Sanjay Shukla, who was one of the passengers in the bus denied mark 'D' of his statement made before the police, which finds mention of the fact that the bus produced a bang and it appeared that something had broken down. However, no credence can be attached to his statement in 11 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) isolation, when the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer have admitted that there was a bang in the bus and it went uncontrolled thereafter. If statement of PW-4 Joginder Singh is seen, the same is also contrary to the statement of the Investigating Officer as well as the complainant. The statement of this witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. reveals that a bang had appeared in the bus when it met with an accident. It is not clear as to why he had made improvement to his statement recorded by the police. Thus no credence can be attached to his statement. Now coming to the statement of PW-6 Prem Chand, who was the Investigating Officer of the case. If his statement is relied upon, it becomes clear that the drivers of Car and Van also contributed to the accident, as both Car and Van came in front of the moving bus unexpectedly and left the accused helpless and in order to avoid the accident, the accused had to turn the bus towards its right side and in the meantime, the patta of the bus got broken down, as such, the bus collided against the hill. Thus, the Investigating Officer himself had supported the defence of the accused fully and firmly and laid the foundation for his acquittal.
19. Therefore, in view of the material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence, the prosecution has failed to 12 ( 2025:HHC:7157 ) 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.
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge March 21, 2025 (raman)