The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against acquittal. Holding that the trial court's view was not perverse and distinctions were not established between the accused and other drivers, the court refused to reverse the finding of not guilty.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:4418 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 140 of 2011 Reserved on: 12.06.2024 Date of Decision: 04th July 2024
State of H.P.
....Appellant
Versus
Shyam Lal
....Respondent/Accused.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No.
| For the Appellant | : Mr.Lokender Kutlehria, Additional |
|---|---|
| Advocate General. | |
| For the Respondent/ |
: Ms Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate |
| Accused | with Mr Basant Pal Thakur. |
. Rakesh Kainthla,Judge
The present appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 06.05.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC and Sections 187 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
3
11/A). He seized the truck bearing HP12A-9675 along with its documents vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). Vipin Kumar succumbed to his injuries. An application (Ext.PW-5/A) was filed for conducting the post-mortem examination of Vipin Kumar. Dr Brind Kapil (PW-5) conducted his post-mortem examination and as per his opinion, the person died due to rupture of vital organs i.e. liver leading to haemorrhagic shock a nd death. He issued his report (Ext.PW5/C). Rajinder Singh (PW-2) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle, and found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW-2/A). He also found traces of the blood on the rear tyre. The accused produced his driving license, which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-3/A). The owner issued a certificate (Ext.PW-4/A) The dead body was handed over to Rajinder Pal (PW-8).The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after completion of the investigation the challan was prepared and it was presented before the Court.
4
279, 304-A of IPC and Sections187 and 177 of the M.V.Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5
6
accused had sped away from the spot due to the fear of the crowd. Their testimonies were discarded without any reason. A precious life was lost and a principle of res-ispa loquitur will apply to the present case. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
7
“ Scope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal:
8
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."
13. This position was reiterated in Siju Kurian versus State
of Karnataka 2023 online SCC 429 , wherein it was held:-
“15. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is to the effect that the High Court ought not to have interdicted with the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Trial Court and only in the event of the judgment of the Trial court was riddled with perversity and the view taken by the Trial Court was not a possible view, same could have been reversed by relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Murugesan V. State through the Inspector of police(2012) 10 SCC 383 whereunder it came to be held as follows:
“ 33. The expressions “erroneous”, “wrong” and “possible” are defined in the Oxford English Dictionary in the following terms:
“ erroneous .— wrong; incorrect.
wrong .—(1) not correct or true, mistaken.
(2) unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
possible .—(1) capable of existing, happening, or being achieved.
(2) that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.”
9
34. It will be necessary for us to emphasize that a possible view denotes an opinion, which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. A view taken by a court lower in the hierarchical structure may be termed as erroneous or wrong by a superior court upon a mere disagreement. However, such a conclusion of the higher court would not take the view rendered by the subordinate court outside the arena of a possible view. The correctness or otherwise of any conclusion reached by a court has to be tested on the basis of what the superior judicial authority perceives to be the correct conclusion. A possible view, on the other hand, denotes a conclusion, which can reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact where it is agreed upon or not by the higher court. The fundamental distinction between the two situations has to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court.”
16. It need not be restated that it would be open for the High Court to re-apprise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court and in the case of the judgment of the trial court being perverse that is contrary to the evidence on record, then in such circumstances the High Court would be justified in interfering with the findings of the Trial Court and/or reversing the finding of the Trial Court. In Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 10 SCC 636: AIR 2010 SC 589 it has been held by this Court as under:
10
“14. We have considered the arguments advanced and heard the matter at great length. It is true, as contended by Mr Rao, that interference in an appeal against an acquittal recorded by the trial court should be rare and in exceptional circumstances. It is, however, well settled by now that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court but only in a case when the judgment of the trial court is stated to be perverse. The word “perverse” in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean “against the weight of evidence”. We have to see accordingly as to whether the judgment of the trial court which has been found perverse by the High Court was in fact so.
17. The Appellate Court may reverse the order of acquittal in the exercise of its powers and there is no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction having been placed on the High Court in the exercise of its power as an Appellate court. No distinction can be drawn as regards the power of the High Court in dealing with an appeal, between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not place any fetter on the exercise of the power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded and to conclude that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.
18. In the case of Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 , it has been held by the Privy Council as under :
But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as:
11
1) The views/opinion of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses;
3) The right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and
19. This Court has time and again reiterated the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal and laid down the general principles in the matter of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka ( 2007) 4 SCC 415 to the following effect:
( 1 ) An Appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
( 2 ) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an Appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and law.
12
( 3 ) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an Appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an Appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
( 4 ) An Appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a 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, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
( 5 ) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13
the truck stopped at a distance of 100-150 yards from the place of
14
the accident and the driver ran away from the spot. The driver has his back towards him. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that he would have seen the driver and would have been in a position to identify him.
15
02.08.2005 till 28.11.2005. He was not aware who was driving the vehicle after 28.11.2005.
16
present at the time of the accident; therefore, he is not competent to depose the identity of the accused.
17
of the driver of the vehicle. Thus, the evidence on record was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident. The learned Trial Court had taken a view which was a probable view based on the evidence led before it. This Court cannot interfere with such a view even if it would have taken a different view had it been trying the matter as an original Court. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
04th July,2024 (Ravinder)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused by finding it perverse or the only possible view on evidence.
Whether the evidence sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the fatal accident.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jafarudheen v. State of KeralaReferred¶37
Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 · Who else cites this
Murugesan v. State through the Inspector of policeReferred¶44
Murugesan V. State through the Inspector of police (2012) 10 SCC 383 · Who else cites this
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶53
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 10 SCC 636: AIR 2010 SC 589 · Who else cites this
Sheo Swarup v. King EmperorReferred¶57
Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶64
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
Siju Kurian versus State of KarnatakaReferred¶42
Siju Kurian versus State of Karnataka 2023 online SCC 429 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of H.P.
Shyam Lal
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
