2026:HHC:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 427 of 2014 Reserved on: 9.12.2025 Date of Decision: 1.1.2026. State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Ravi Prakash ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent : M/s Shekhar Badola and Parav Sharma, Advocates. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.6.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II, Dehra, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). (Parties shall 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:26 hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act. It was asserted that the informant, Pradeep Kumar (PW1), was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-21A-0692 on 14.4.2010. His wife Kamlesh Kumari (PW2) was travelling as a pillion rider. The motorcycle reached Jajwad at 7.00 pm when a private bus bearing registration No. HP-36A-7510 came from the opposite side. Accused Ravi Parkash, was driving the bus negligently at a high speed. The bus hit the motorcycle. Pradeep Kumar and Kamlesh fell. Rajinder Kumar (PW6) and Sumna Devi (not examined) came to the spot in their car. They carried the injured to the hospital. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. Matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ex.PW9/A) was recorded in the Police Station, and HC Baldev Raj (PW9) was directed to verify the correctness of the information. HC Baldev Raj went to the hospital. He filed an 3 2026:HHC:26 application for the medical examination of the injured Pradeep. Dr. Satinder Verma (PW5) examined Pradeep Kumar and Kamlesh Kumari and found that they had sustained simple and grievous injuries, which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. He issued MLCs (Ex.PW5/C and Ex. PW5/E). Pradeep Kumar made a statement (Ex.PW1/A) which was sent to the Police Station where FIR (Ex.PW7/B) was registered. HC Baldev Raj (PW9) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/D). He seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-21A-0692 along with documents vide memo (Ex. PW8/A). Sudhir Sharma (PW4) produced the bus bearing registration No. HP-36A-7510 and the documents, which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW4/A). HC Chaman Lal (PW3) examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B). Sampat Sharma produced the certificate (Ex. PW9/E) regarding the employment of the accused, which was seized by the police. HC Baldev Raj took the photographs of the spot (Ex. P1 to Ex. P7) and transferred them to the CD (Ex. P8). The documents of the motorcycle were seized vide memo (Ex.PW7/A). He recorded the 4 2026:HHC:26 statements of witnesses as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Pradeep Kumar (PW1) is the informant/victim. Kamlesh Kumari (PW2) was riding the motorcycle as a pillion rider. HC Chaman Lal (PW3) examined the vehicles. Sudhir Sharma (PW4) produced the documents and proved that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Dr. Satinder Verma (PW5) medically examined the injured. Rajinder Kumar (PW6) carried the injured to the hospital. Kadu Ram (PW7) and HHC Ravinder Kumar (PW8) witnessed the recoveries. HC Baldev Raj (PW9) investigated the matter. 5 2026:HHC:26 5. The accused denied the prosecution’s case in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He stated that the motorcycle skidded due to high speed, causing injuries to the driver and the pillion rider. The bus had not hit the motorcycle, and a false case was made against him. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the accident had occurred on the right side of the road for the motorcycle, and the left side of the bus. The statements of the informant and his wife contradicted each other. The mechanical report did not support their version. The prosecution’s case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 187 of the MV Act. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence on record. The informant and his wife specifically stated that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the accused. Learned Trial Court erred in discarding their 6 2026:HHC:26 testimonies. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside. 8. I have heard Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and M/s Shekhar Badola and Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused. 9. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The testimonies of the informant and his wife proved that the accused was negligently driving the bus. Learned Trial Court erred in discarding their testimonies and holding that the negligence of the accused was not proved. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside. 10. Mr Shekhar Badola, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the accident had occurred towards the right side of the road, which showed the negligence of the motorcyclist. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court should not 7 2026:HHC:26 interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding the appeal against acquittal. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/ omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440: “12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 13. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed:- 8 2026:HHC:26 “12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappav. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114.” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The informant, Pradeep Kumar, stated that he was going from Chambapattan to Sihorpen. A bus bearing registration No. HP-36A-7510 came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle. He and his wife sustained injuries. He stated in his cross-examination that the motorcycle was on the kachha portion of the road on its left side. The bus was stopped after a distance of 500 mtrs. He denied that the accident occurred on the blind curve. 9 2026:HHC:26 16. Kamlesh Kumari (PW2) stated that she and her husband were riding a motorcycle. The bus came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the motorcycle. She and her husband fell. Rajinder and Sumna took them to the hospital. She stated in her cross-examination that the motorcycle had hit the rear portion of the bus. She admitted that the people were walking on the road due to Baisakhi. The bus stopped at some distance from the place of the incident. She denied that the incident occurred on a blind curve. 17. Both witnesses stated that the accident occurred on the unmetalled portion of the road towards the left side of the motorcycle. These statements are contrary to the site plan (Ex.PW9/D), which shows the place of accident at Point-X on the mettled portion of the road. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly disbelieved the testimonies of these witnesses that the accident had occurred on the unmetalled portion of the road. 18. Kamlesh Kumari (PW2) stated that the motorcycle had hit the rear side of the bus. This is contrary to the report (Ex.PW3/A) in which damage was found towards the right side of the headlight. Thus, her testimony does not explain the accident. 10 2026:HHC:26 19. Rajinder Kumar (PW6) admitted in his cross- examination that the accident had not occurred in his presence. Therefore, he is not an eyewitness to the accident, and no advantage can be derived from his testimony. 20. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses did not properly explain the accident, and the accused could not be held to be negligent. This was a reasonable view that could have been taken based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. 21. No other point was urged. 22. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed. 23. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the respondent/ accused is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial 11 2026:HHC:26 Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. 25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st January, 2026 (Chander)