( 2025:HHC:39451 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 329 of 2015 Reserved on: 17.11.2025 Decided on: 21.11.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant Versus Bhumi Singh …Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Balvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, 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 07.01.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:39451 ) 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.06.2009 at about 2:45 P.M., while accused Bhumi Singh was driving a Tempo bearing registration No. HP-28B-6069, he hit the tempo against motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23A-2257, due to which, Kulwant Singh and his brother Raj Kumar had sustained injuries. As per complainant Kulwant Singh, accused Bhumi Singh was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and in a wrong direction. After the aforesaid accident, injured were taken to hospital and their medical examination was conducted. Consequently, FIR was registered against the accused. Spot map was prepared and and both the vehicles were taken into possession. After completion of all the codal formalities, challan was presented against the accused before the learned trial Court. 3. On finding prima facie case against the accused, notice of accusation was put to him under Sections 279, 337 & 338 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 13 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the allegations and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely 2 ( 2025:HHC:39451 ) implicated in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. 5. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 07.01.2015, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 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 Deputy Advocate General contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true perspective and has discarded the testimonies of prosecution witnesses for untenable reasons. 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 doubt, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him. 3 ( 2025:HHC:39451 ) 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 ac- quittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-es- tablished rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judg- ment of acquittal passed by the trial court Thus, the Ap- pellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal. Which had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses whose evidence have been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of ap- peal 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 4 ( 2025:HHC:39451 ) 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 princi- ples regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judg- ment which is relevant reads as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding pow- ers 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 unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Sec- ondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, 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 5 ( 2025:HHC:39451 ) 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 13 witnesses. 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. It needs to be noticed that complainant 6 ( 2025:HHC:39451 ) Kulwant Singh died during pendency of the trial and his statement could not be recorded. PW-1 Thakur Dass and PW-5 Gaj Raj were examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the accident. Thakur Dass while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 deposed that the accident took place due to rash and driving of the accused, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the accident. Thus, the statement of this witness proves that he was not present on the spot at the time of accident. PW-5 Gaj Raj though deposed that the accident took place due to high speed and rash driving of the accused, however, he has not specifically stated that how the accused was rash at the time of driving the tempo bearing registration No. HP- 28B-6069. 15. Further, in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C., it has been mentioned that the complainant and his brother Raj Kumar were going to Jahu on motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23-2257, however, Raj Kumar was neither cited as witness nor his statement could be recorded. In the statement of the compalainant, it has been written that the accident took place due to the reason that the accused was driving his vehicle in a wrong direction, however, 7 ( 2025:HHC:39451 ) PW-5 Gaj Raj had nowhere stated that the accused was driving his vehicle in a wrong direction and due to this reason, he hit the motorcycle. Therefore, in view of the contradiction in the statements of complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. and PW-5 Gaj Raj, the case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. 16. Hence, in view of the material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence led by the prosecution, it 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. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge November 21, 2025 (raman) 8