Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16767 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Piar Chand

2026-02-28

Sandeep Sharma

body2026
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to impugned judgment dated 24.02.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Challan No.35-II/06 under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code, whereby learned Court below acquitted the respondent- accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) for his having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant/State, as has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, is that learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result thereof, findings contrary to the record have come to the fore. While making this Court peruse statement of PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda, Mr. Chauhan, submitted that prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the accused, who otherwise after having hit the scooter on which the complainant and the deceased were travelling, fled away from the spot. He further submitted that prosecution also proved factum of the death of the deceased on account of his having suffered multiple injuries after being hit by the scooter being driven by the accused, but yet learned trial Court despite there being cogent and convincing evidence, proceeded to acquit the accused. 3. To the contrary, Mr. Sat Parkash, learned counsel for the accused, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal, vehemently argued that no case much less case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while acquitting the accused. While referring to the statement of PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda, which has been heavily relied upon by learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Sat Parkash, submitted that version put forth by the afore witness rightly came to be discarded on account of its being untrustworthy. He submitted that if the statement of this witness is read in its entirety, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while returning the finding that there are major contradictions in the statement of afore witness. He submitted that if the statement of this witness is read in its entirety, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while returning the finding that there are major contradictions in the statement of afore witness. He submitted that this witness deposed falsely before the Court because bare perusal of rapat No.21 Ext.PW5/A, which was proved by PW-5 SI Jagdish Ram, clearly reveals that afore witness was never present at the time of accident, but yet prosecution, with a view to prove its case, introduced afore witness, who at one point of time, stated that complainant as well as deceased had asked him to join them for dinner at Ambari, but in the same breath, he submitted that at the time of accident, he was standing outside the dhaba. Mr. Sat Parkash, further submitted that most relevant witness i.e. owner of the dhaba as well as servant working in his dhaba, who allegedly had taken deceased to the hospital never came to be examined. He submitted that neither complainant nor Surinder @ Chhinda stated anything specific with regard to rash and negligent driving of the accused. He submitted that once very presence of the accused is doubtful, coupled with the fact that it has specifically come on record that complainant as well as deceased were under the influence of liquor, learned Court below rightly acquitted the accused of charges framed against him. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Court below, this Court is not persuaded to agree with afore submissions made by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. This Court finds that at the time of lodging report, complainant PW-1 Ramesh Chand never stated that PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda was present on the spot. Bare perusal of aforesaid rapat Ext. PW-5/A, on the basis of which FIR came to be lodged, clearly reveals that accident had taken place at about 07:40 p.m. Bare perusal of Ext. PW-1/A reveals that at about 07:45 p.m., when complainant along with deceased reached at Ambari Chowk, deceased Joginder expressed his desire to have dinner. However, before complainant and deceased could turn towards dhaba at Ambari Chowk, allegedly scooter being driven by the accused hit the scooter being driven by the complainant. PW-1/A reveals that at about 07:45 p.m., when complainant along with deceased reached at Ambari Chowk, deceased Joginder expressed his desire to have dinner. However, before complainant and deceased could turn towards dhaba at Ambari Chowk, allegedly scooter being driven by the accused hit the scooter being driven by the complainant. There is no mention of witness Surinder @ Chhinda in the statement of PW-1/A. However, complainant, while appearing as PW-1 in the witness box, though talked about the presence of PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda, but nowhere stated that as to how and when afore witness joined him and the deceased on the spot. He merely made a passing reference to the effect that he and PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda had taken the injured to the hospital. In his cross-examination, complainant deposed that he had told the police that he and Surinder @ Chhinda had taken the injured to the hospital, but when his attention was drawn to his statement recorded Section 154 Cr.P.C, this fact was not found recorded. In his statement Ext.PW1/A, complainant mentioned that as they intended to have dinner in the hotel, the scooter came and the accident happened, but before the Court, he deposed that he had taken the dinner in the hotel. Had PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda deceased present with the complainant and deceased at the time of accident, complainant would have certainly mentioned his name at the time of getting his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Most importantly, if the statement made by this witness is perused in its entirety, he nowhere specifically stated that at relevant time, the scooter, which allegedly hit the scooter being driven by the complainant, was being driven by the accused. PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda deposed that he along with complainant and deceased had just taken the meal in the hotel and were standing outside, when a scooter being driven at a high speed came and collided against the deceased. This version of him is in total contradiction to the version put forth by PW-1, who deposed that while they had decided to stop at the dhaba to have dinner, scooter being driven by the accused hit his scooter, as a result thereof, deceased fell on the ground and suffered injuries. He never deposed that at the time of accident, PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda was present along with them. 5. He never deposed that at the time of accident, PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda was present along with them. 5. PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda deposed that they shifted the injured to the hospital immediately and the Police was called. However, in his cross-examination, he deposed that Ramesh and Joginder Singh met him in Ambari itself, while he was present outside his house. He deposed that both of them had called him to join them for the meal and he, therefore, picked up the scooter and came to the hotel. If the version put- forth by this witness is read in conjunction with the version put-forth by PW-1, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Sat Parkash, learned counsel for the accused, that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies with regard to presence of PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda in front of dhaba or at the spot of alleged incident. Most importantly, this witness failed to specifically state with regard to identity of the person, who allegedly was driving the offending scooter at the time of accident. 6. PW-2, in his cross-examination, deposed that he knows the accused from the very beginning and prior to the accident, but in his further cross-examination, he deposed that he has seen the accused for the first time in the Court and accused was not known to him even prior to the accident. It is apparent from the cross-examination conducted upon prosecution witnesses that accused came with a specific defence that complainant and the deceased were both drunk and the deceased fell down from the scooter of the complainant. Accused further stated that he was falsely implicated because he used to supply the secret information against the complainant and the deceased as both of them were involved in many excise cases. Interestingly, PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda stated that his statement was recorded by the Police on the same day, whereas it is on record that his statement was recorded on the next day. Since PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda was not present on the spot as is evident from the statement of PW-1 i.e. complainant, learned trial Court rightly concluded that afore person purposely came to be introduced by the complainant to prove the case of the prosecution. Since relations inter se accused and the complainant as well as deceased were not cordial, which fact is otherwise evident from the statement made by PW-2. Since relations inter se accused and the complainant as well as deceased were not cordial, which fact is otherwise evident from the statement made by PW-2. Statement of PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda rightly came to be disbelieved by the learned Court below, while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. 7. Interestingly, in the case at hand, most important witness, Mr. Madan Gopal, owner of the hotel, was never examined before the Court as he died before he could make his statement. No person, who could be identified as the servant of the owner of the Dhaba i.e. Madan Gopal, was associated by the police and examined in the Court. Once PW-1 Ramesh Chand and PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda attempted to make out a case that accident had happened in front of dhaba and thereafter, owner as well as his servant had taken the deceased to the hospital along with complainant, it was very much necessary for the prosecution to associate aforesaid persons as witnesses. Though non-examination of Mr. Madan Gopal can be justified on account of his death but there is no explanation as to why employee of the Dhaba, who was allegedly present on the spot, was not examined. Statement of the complainant nowhere proves the identity of the accused as the person driving the scooter bearing registration No. HP-39- 4078. In his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., he nowhere disclosed the identity of the accused, rather stated that he was not known to the accused. There is no evidence on record to prove that Police got the accused identified from the complainant and the complainant could identify him from his appearance. In his cross-examination, complainant tried to make an improvement by deposing that he had named the accused in his statement made to the Police. However, when he was confronted with his statement Ext. PW-1/A, name of the accused was not found to be mentioned. In his statement given to the Court, he deposed that Police has not got the accused identified from him. He deposed that he has seen the accused twice in his shop after 3-4 days of the accident, but he never visited the police post. Once the complainant had not visited the police after the alleged accident, there was no occasion for him to name the accused to the Police. He deposed that he has seen the accused twice in his shop after 3-4 days of the accident, but he never visited the police post. Once the complainant had not visited the police after the alleged accident, there was no occasion for him to name the accused to the Police. Had he known the accused, he could have disclosed his name to the Police at the time of recording his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C which he failed to do. Accused came to be prosecuted merely on the ground that the registration number of scooter disclosed by the complainant to the police matched with the number of scooter of the accused. 8. Mere description, if any, qua registration number of scooter owned by the accused may not be sufficient to hold him guilty. Complainant admitted that it was dark and nothing was visible. He deposed that the driver of the scooter did not stop on the spot and fled away. Had the complainant identified the accused by his appearance on the spot, he would have deposed to the police in his statement Ext.PW1/A that he can identify the accused by his appearance, who at relevant time was running his shop at place known as 61 miles. Interestingly, scooter was impounded by the IO of the case after many days i.e. on 28.11.2025 vide memo Ext.PW-5/A. There is no explanation as to why the scooter was not impounded at the earliest so that evidence could be prevented from being destroyed by him. When the accused had also fallen on the spot, as has been stated by complainant PW-1 and PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda, he would have also suffered injuries. Neither accused was apprehended by the persons present on the spot at the time of accident i.e. complainant and PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda or owner of the shop nor he was subjected to any medical examination. 9. Dr. N.S Bedi appeared as PW-3 in the witness box and proved MLC Ext.PW3/A. Aforesaid witness clearly deposed that at the time examination of the complainant as well as deceased, he noticed smell of alcohol from their mouth, meaning thereby, complainant as well as deceased were driving the scooter at relevant time under the influence of liquor. 10. Leaving everything aside, no evidence worth credence ever came to be led on record by the prosecution to prove rash driving or riding on a public path. 10. Leaving everything aside, no evidence worth credence ever came to be led on record by the prosecution to prove rash driving or riding on a public path. To invoke Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the person charged under the aforesaid provision was driving on a public way in such a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. None of the prosecution witnesses stated anything specific with regard to rash and negligent driving, as such, accused rightly came to be acquitted of charge framed against him under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. 11. Similarly there is no evidence to prove that accused caused hurt to the complainant or deceased by doing any act rashly and negligently so as to endanger their lives. Once complainant and deceased themselves were found to be under the influence of liquor and complainant was unable to identify the accused, learned Court below rightly acquitted the accused from the commission of offence. Since identity of the accused could not be proved, rash and negligent act, thereby causing death of the deceased cannot be attributed to the accused. If it is so, he otherwise could not have been charged under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 12. PW-7 Anil Kumar, in his cross-examination, stated that he knows complainant Ramesh Chand and PW-2 Surinder @ Chhinda as well as deceased Joginder Singh and they were all involved in illegal trade of illicit trafficking of liquor. He also deposed that accused is an informer of the Police. Version put-forth by the aforesaid witness fortifies the stand taken by the accused that on account of his being an informer, whereby he had been informing the Police with regard to illicit trade of Narcotics and liquor by the complainant, deceased and Surinder @ Chhinda, has falsely implicated him. 13. Having scanned the entire evidence led by the prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution was unable to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while acquitting the accused of charges framed against him. 14. 13. Having scanned the entire evidence led by the prosecution, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that prosecution was unable to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while acquitting the accused of charges framed against him. 14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court, which appears to have been passed on the proper appreciation of facts, as such, same is upheld. Accordingly, present appeal fails and dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused stands discharged.