( 2025:HHC:33501 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 262 of 2011 Reserved on: 12.09.2025 Decided on: 26.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant Versus Joginder Singh …Respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ankush Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: 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 23.11.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), 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 & 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.10.2006, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 2 a telephonic information was received from M.O., SDH, Kangra in respect of an accident case. On receiving such information, the police officials proceeded towards the Hospital and recorded the statement of complainant Lal Bahadur under section 154 Cr. P.C. As per the case of the prosecution, on 15.10.2006, at about 7:00 p.m., at Divya Himachal Printing Press, Purana Matour, while injured Lal Bahadur was coming back after completing his work alongwith his companion and they were heading towards their houses, accused Joginder Singh came from behind in a Motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-54A-1412 at a high speed and hit Lal Bahadur, who was walking on his own side. In the said accident, Lal Bahadur sustained injuries and according to him, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused Joginder Singh. On the basis of complaint of the complainant, FIR was registered against the accused. The complainant was medically examined and his MLC was procured. Spot map was prepared and and vehicle No. HP-54A-1412 was impounded alongwith documents. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. After completion of all the codal formalities, challan was presented against the accused in the learned trial Court. ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 3 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 08 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 23.11.2010, acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC, hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. I have heard learned Deputy 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 not appreciated the testimonies of complainant Lal Bahadur (PW-1) and eye witness of the accident Rambu Chaudhary (PW-2) in its right perspective and erroneously came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 4 prove rash and negligent driving of 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 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:- “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 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 ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 5 judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court Thus, the Appellate 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 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 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 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 regarding 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 considered 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 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, ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 6 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 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). ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 7 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 08 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. The statement of complainant Lal Bahadur under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the hospital on 15.10.2006 and he was fit to make statement on the said date wherein he disclosed to the police that a scooter No. 1412 was involved in the accident, but he could not recognize the accused person. He was medically examined on the same day and in the application moved by the police for medical examination of the complainant also, the number of scooter has been mentioned as 1412. The statement of complainant recorded on 18.10.2006 under Section 161 Cr. P.C. mentions that because of pain in his arm, he had wrongly disclosed to the police that a Scooter was involved in the accident instead of motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-54A-1412. The statement of complainant, under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was again recorded on 20.10.2006, wherein he ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 8 mentioned that he identified the accused person when he (accused) came to police station to hand over the documents of the motorcycle to the police, however, this fact creates doubt on the prosecution story. His statements recorded on 18/20.10.2006 appear to be an afterthought and his testimony on oath does not disclose that he identified the accused person on the aforesaid date. Thus, it cannot be believed that Lal Bahadur had seen the accused person on the date of incident. When the statement of the complainant was being recorded on oath, he failed to disclose about the place where the incident occurred and also failed to state about the speed of the vehicle. He only mentioned that he was walking on his own side and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. Another witness Krishan Lal who was accompanying PW-1 & PW-2 on the relevant date has not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he was won over by the accused person. 15. PW-2, Rambu Chaudhary, had failed to mention registration number of the motorcycle in his examination-in-chief. There are various contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which create a doubt about the prosecution story. According to the complainant, PW-2 was walking ahead of him ( 2025:HHC:33501 ) 9 and no one else was accompanying them, whereas, PW-2 had stated that they were accompanied by Om Prakash, Uttam Chand and 2-3 other persons. PW-2 stated in his cross- examination that the statement of Om Prakash was recorded by the police, whereas, PW-8 the Investigating Officer admitted that statements of Om Prakash and Uttam Chand were not recorded by him. No other independent witness was examined to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. 16. Therefore, in view of the material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence, the prosecution 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 26th September, 2025 (raman)