1 2025:HHC:25798 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 553 of 2015 Reserved on: 5.5.2025 Decided on : 31.7.2025 State of H.P. … Appellant Versus Kuldeep Singh …Respondent _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Appellant-State of H.P. has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.’), against the judgment of acquittal, dated 5.3.2015, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 2 2025:HHC:25798 ‘the Trial Court’), in Criminal Case No. 139-1-08/15-II- 09/08 titled as, ‘State of H.P. versus Kuldeep Singh’. 2. Vide judgment of acquittal, under challenge, before this Court, the learned trial Court has acquitted accused Kuldeep Singh, from the offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). 3 For the sake of convenience, respondent 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 appeal, as borne out from the record of the case, may be summed up, as under: 4.1 The Police of Police Station, Haroli has filed the charge sheet, against the accused, in FIR No. 221 of 2008, dated 17.9.2008, which was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. As per report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C., on 17.9.2008, ASI Bhag Chand, I.O., alongwith other police officials, had gone to the spot, in order to verify the facts, about the roadside 3 2025:HHC:25798 accident. On the spot, complainant Tara Chand got recorded his statement, disclosing therein, that he is labourer by profession. On 17.9.2008, he was going to Amrali on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. PB- 16B-6092, alongwith one Bhajan Singh, S/o Bihari Lal, who was the pillion rider. Both of them were on their way to their work. 4.2 At about 1:45 p.m., when, they reached near Amrali, then, from the opposite direction, a bus bearing registration No. HP 20A-2452, being driven by its driver, came at a very fast speed and hit his motorcycle. Consequently, pillion rider Bhajan Singh fell on the road and his head got crushed underneath the vehicle, upon which, he died on the spot. 4.3. The complainant specifically alleged that the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 4.4 On the basis of above, Police registered the FIR. Criminal machinery swung into motion. 4 2025:HHC:25798 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. 6. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C., the learned trial Court found a prima-facie case, against the accused for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. As such, after securing the presence of accused, the learned trial Court put notice of accusation to the accused, to which, he has not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution has examined, as many as, 12 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 stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case. However, he has not led defence evidence. 8. The learned trial Court, after hearing learned APP, as well as, learned counsel for the accused, 5 2025:HHC:25798 acquitted the accused from the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC, as referred to above, vide judgment dated 5.3.2015. 9. Aggrieved from the judgment of acquittal, the respondent-State has preferred the present appeal, before this Court on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence, in a proper manner, and acquitted the accused on the flimsy grounds. 10. According to the appellant, the evidence of the prosecution has not been considered in a proper perspective and an unrealistic approach has been adopted by the learned trial Court, as it has wrongly discarded the evidence of the prosecution, without any reason, and that in the absence of any proof, or animosity, the evidence of official witnesses, cannot be discarded. 11. The appeal has been assailed further on the ground that the learned trial Court has wrongly 6 2025:HHC:25798 discarded the evidence of PW-6 Tara Chand and PW-1 Ajay Kumar, without any reason. 12. The other ground, on which, the present appeal has been assailed, is that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that as per site plan Ext. PW12/C, the metalled road was 18 feet wide, at the spot. 13. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Addl. A.G., assisted by Ms. Ranjna Patial, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted by setting aside the judgment of acquittal, and accused be punished, in accordance with law, by convicting him, for the offences, punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. 14. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate has supported the judgment of acquittal by arguing that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of the prosecution and with the passing of the judgment of acquittal, the presumption of innocence, which was 7 2025:HHC:25798 available to the accused, during the trial, has doubled. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal. 15. In order to decide the appeal, in an effective manner, it would be just and proper for this Court to discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 16. PW-6 is Tara Chand, who has put the criminal machinery into motion. While appearing in the witness box, he has deposed that on 17.9.2008, he was on his way to Amarali, on motorcycle No. PB-16B-6092 with Bhajan Singh (pillion rider). At about 1:30-1:45 p.m., in the afternoon, when, they reached near the curve at Amarali, then, from the opposite direction, bus No. HP20A-2452 came there at a very fast speed and hit the motorcycle, driven by him, due to which, he fell down on the side of the road, whereas, Bhajan Singh (pillion rider) fell on the side of the bus, and his head got crushed under the tyre of the bus, due to which, he died on the spot. According to him, the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. 8 2025:HHC:25798 16.1 This witness has further deposed that later on, he came to know the name of the bus driver as Kuldeep Singh (accused). This witness has duly identified him in the Court. He has further deposed that his statement, Ext. PW6/A was recorded by the Police, which bears his signatures. The place of accident is stated to have been visited by the Police. This witness had also sustained injuries and was medico-legally examined. 16.2 In the cross-examination, PW-6 has deposed that firstly, the front tyre of the bus crossed over the feet of Bhajan Singh (decesed) and thereafter, the rear tyre also crossed over him. According to this witness, he has not given said statement to the Police, and the statement, which was recorded, was not read over to him. As per him, the Police has not inquired anything from him. He has further admitted that place of accident was a curve. This witness has further admitted that from the curve, vehicles coming from the opposite side, were not visible. He has denied the suggestion that he has made the statement before the Police that in order to overtake, the 9 2025:HHC:25798 accident had taken place. He has further admitted that it was raining on that day. This witness has further admitted that Bhajan Singh (deceased) fell on the road side, whereas, he had fallen on the un-metalled portion of the road. 17. PW-12 is the I.O., ASI Bhag Chand. He has deposed about the manner, in which, he has conducted the investigation. 17.1 In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he found in the investigation that there was no head-on collision between the bus and motorcycle. He has further admitted that the pillion rider fell on the road towards his left side. The metalled width of the road is stated to be 18 feet. He has admitted that when the bus in question was taken into possession, there were no scratch marks on the road side, or on front side of the vehicle, nor any blood stains were found there. This witness has further admitted that he has recorded supplementary statement of complainant Tara Chand, Ext. PW12/H-2, mentioning therein that the 10 2025:HHC:25798 complainant, after leaving his side, was driving his motorcycle, on the opposite side. He has further admitted that in the statement Ext. PW12/G-1, it has been mentioned that the motorcyclist was riding the motorcycle, at a very fast speed, and he negotiated the curve and in that process, he collided with the bus. He has further admitted that nothing was found in the investigation that deceased got crushed under the front tyre of the vehicle. 18. PW-1 Ajay Kumar has been examined as eye witness. According to this witness, on 17.9.2008, he was travelling in the bus and at about 1:30-2:00 p.m., when the bus reached near Amarali bridge, and was on the way to Tahliwal, then, from the other side, a motorcycle came and the said motorcycle skidded and fell on the road. The pillion rider sustained the injuries. Since, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, as such, on the request of the learned APP, he was declared hostile, and the learned APP was permitted to cross-examine this witness. 11 2025:HHC:25798 19. Despite his lengthy cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited from him. 20. Rest of the witnesses are link witnesses. 21. No doubt, a valuable life has been lost in the accident in question, but, merely on that ground, the accused cannot be punished, as it is for the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, for which, the accused has been charge-sheeted. Law can not presume or assume any fact, until or unless, it has been specifically provided, under the law. The accident in question stood proved, in this case, however, from the statement of PW-6 Tara Chand, who put the criminal machinery into motion, it seems that this witness has concealed more material facts from the scrutiny of the Court, than to submit the same before the learned trial Court, rather, in his cross-examination, he has deposed that the bus had hit the motorcycle of the complainant, from the front portion, on driver side, whereas, the I.O. has stated that no such evidence has been found on the 12 2025:HHC:25798 spot. Meaning thereby, whatsoever has been deposed by PW-6, that has been belied from the statement of I.O. 22. It is no longer res-integra that in the appeal, against the acquittal, the Appellate Court should be slow in reversing the findings, until or unless, findings are declared as ‘perverse findings’, and if two views are possible, then the view, which has been adopted by the trial Court, normally be accepted by the Appellate Court, until or unless, findings call for interference, on account of being ‘perverse findings’. 23. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has rightly considered the evidence of PW-6, as well as, PW- 1. PW-1 has endorsed a different story by alleging that the motorcycle had skidded off and stuck against the bus and due to this, the pillion rider fell on the road, and expired. 24. By no stretch of imagination, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, can be said to be ‘perverse findings’, and calls for no interference. 25. No other point is urged or argued. 13 2025:HHC:25798 26. Consequently, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. As such, the present appeal is dismissed, and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, is upheld. Bail bonds are discharged. 27. The pending application (s), if any, are also disposed of. 28. Record be sent down. (Virender Singh) Judge 31.7.2025 Kalpana