High Court of H.P.IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 342 of 2009

Decided on: June 21, 2019

_____________________________________________________________

State of H.P. ……...Appellant

Versus

Jai Chand …Respondent

_____________________________________________________________

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1 Yes.

_____________________________________________________________

For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Additional

Advocate General.

For the respondent: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

_____________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral)

Instant criminal appeal having been filed by the

appellant­State, lays challenge to the judgment dated

31.3.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Court No. 2, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in

Criminal Case No. 366­11/2004/2002, whereby learned Court

below held respondent­accused (hereinafter, ‘accused’), not

guilty of having committed offences punishable under Ss. 279

and 304­A IPC and Ss. 191, 192­A and 196 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and accordingly acquitted him.

2. In nutshell, case of the prosecution as emerges

from the record is that on 31.1.1999, at about 3.45 pm, at

place 78 Miles (Aberi), accused was driving truck bearing

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 2

registration No. HPK­1073. It is alleged that on the date of

alleged accident, complainant Manoj Kumar alongwith his

cousin Satish Kumar was going to Aberi to purchase

vegetables. It is alleged that the accused was driving the

vehicle in question on public way in a rash and negligent

manner and hit the same against Satish Kumar, who came

beneath the front tyre of the vehicle. Statement of PW­5 Manoj

Kumar (complainant)(Ext. PW­5/A) was got recorded and on

the basis of same, FIR (Ext. PW­1/A) was registered under the

aforesaid provisions of law at Police Station Palampur. After

completion of investigation, Police presented Challan in the

court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class­II, Palampur,

District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, who, being satisfied that

prima facie case exists against the accused, served notice of

accusation upon him for the commission of aforesaid offences,

to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution, with a view to prove its case against

the accused, examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas,

accused in his statement recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied

the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed that at the time

of alleged incident, he was not driving the truck in question

and he has been falsely implicated. However, the fact remains

that he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 3

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record, this court finds no

illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment of

acquittal passed by learned trial Court, because, admittedly, in

the case at hand, prosecution has not been able to prove

beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident,

accused was driving the truck in question. Apart from above, it

clearly emerges from the record that the Investigating Officer,

PW­7, never conducted identification parade, if any, after

lodging of complaint and it is only during trial that the

complainant PW­5 Manoj Kumar as well as PW­3 Ashwani

Kumar identified the accused in the court. Apart from above,

there is no specific evidence led on record with regard to rash

and negligent driving on the part of accused, who at the time

of alleged incident, was allegedly driving the offending vehicle.

5. PW­5 Manoj Kumar, deposed that he alongwith

deceased was going to Aberi to purchase veg etables on

31.1.1999. He deposed that the offending vehicle came in a

high speed from Aberi side and truck driver suddenly turned

the truck. He deposed that on seeing truck, he jumped for his

safety but his cousin was run over by front tyre of the truck.

He stated that truck was being driven by accused, who was

present in the court and accused as well as cleaner fled away

from the spot. He further deposed that the people gathered on

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 4

the spot and pulled Satish Kumar out. In his cross ­

examination, this witness admitted that the Police did not get

the identification parade conducted from him and further

admitted that he identified the accused in the court, as he

thought that he would be the driver. He further admitted that

he had not got written the name of the truck driver in his

statement, Ext. PW­5/A. This witness also admitted that he

had not given any statement to the Police that he identified the

driver and could recognize him.

6. PW­3 Ashwani Kumar was working at 78 Miles on

the relevant date and time. This witness deposed that his

younger brother as well as deceased Satish Kumar were

walking on the side of the road. He deposed that the offending

truck struck against wall and then front tyre of the truck ran

over deceased Satish Kumar. He stated that he pulled out

Satish Kumar from beneath the truck and took him to the

hospital, where he died. This witness stated that the accident

occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part

of accused. It has also come in his evidence that accused is

driver of the truck. In his cross­examination, he admitted that

he did not witness the accident himself, rather he was told by

PW­5 Manoj Kumar that driver of the truck had fled away.

7. PW­4 Randhir Singh runs a shop at 78 Miles. This

witness deposed that on the relevant date, time and place,

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 5

truck bearing registration No. HPK­1073 came from Baijnath

side and suddenly turned towards right side and struck with

the wall on the right side. He deposed that one boy was

shouting that his brother had come beneath the truck. He also

deposed that the truck driver and cleaner fled away from the

spot.

8. PW­8, Dulo Ram is the owner of the offending

truck. This witness deposed that he had given papers of the

truck to the Police. He further deposed that he had employed

one driver, who was from Nurpur and his name was Jai Mal

son of Mangat Ram. He stated that the log book was taken at

that time by the Police. He stated that he does not know the

accused. This witness deposed that on the day of accident, Jai

Mal son of Mangat Ram, resident of Nurpur was the driver,

who was employed only 3­4 months back. During cross­

examination he admitted that the document, Ext. PW­8/A was

not written by him nor number of vehicle was written on the

same.

9. PW­7 HC Nardev Singh is the Investigating Officer.

He deposed that on 31.1.1999, he got recorded statement of

complainant, PW­5 Manoj Kumar under S.154 CrPC, on the

basis of which formal FIR, Ext. PW­1/A came to be registered.

He stated that it has come in the investigation that accident

took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 6

accused. In his cross­examination, this witness admitted that

Manoj Kumar had not disclosed anything regarding identity of

the truck driver.

10. Thus, the statements having been made by

material prosecution witnesses, if read in entirety, certainly

compel this court to draw an inference that there are material

contradictions and inconsistencies, as such, not much reliance

could be placed upon the same by the learned trial Court,

while ascertaining guilt, if any of the accused. If statement of

PW­5, complainant, is read juxtaposing statements of other

prosecution witnesses, it completely demolishes the case of

prosecution, because, it has nowhere come in the statement of

PW­5 that, on first instance, truck driver or accused struck the

vehicle against the wall, rather, this witness deposed that

truck from Aberi side came in high speed and he, after seeing

truck, jumped for safety, whereas Satish Kumar was run over

by the offending truck. On the other hand, PW­3 Ashwani

Kumar and PW­4 Randhir Singh have stated that, at the first

instance, truck struck against wall. Similarly, if statements of

these witnesses are read, they certainly suggest that no

identification parade was eve r got conducted by the

Investigating Officer, after lodging of the FIR. Similarly,

statement of PW­5 itself suggests that he, at no point of time,

disclosed the particulars, if any, with regard to identify of the

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 7

accused. This witness categorically admitted in his cross ­

examination that no identification parade was got conducted

by the Investigating Officer and he identified the accused in

the court only, after four months.

11. Version of PW­3 otherwise could not be taken into

consideration because as per own statement of the aforesaid

witness, accident did not take place in his presence, rather, he

was told by PW­5 Manoj Kumar that the truck being driven by

accused had crushed deceased Satish Kum ar, whereafter,

both, truck driver and cleaner fled away. Interestingly, in the

case at hand, record reveals that after the alleged accident,

Police got vehicle mechanically examined from the mechanic,

who reported that there was no defect in the vehicle, but this

person was never examined as a witness by the prosecution.

12. PW­7, Investigating Officer, in his statement

admitted that PW­5 Manoj Kumar did not give statement with

regard to identity of the accused. PW­5 Manoj Kumar, in his

cross­examination categorically denied the suggestion put to

him that he was deposing falsely in the court to the effect that

the accused was the driver of the vehicle, but it stands duly

proved on record that after lodging of complaint, no

identification parade was got conducted, rather, for the first

time, PW­5 identified the accused in the court. It has

specifically come in the cross­examination of the PW­5 that he

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 8

did not disclose the age, height and colour etc. of the driver of

the vehicle. Prosecution has placed strong reliance upon Ext.

PW­8/A, abstract of log book, which contains signatures of Jai

Chand, but careful perusal of same depicts that it is upto

20.7.1998, whereas, accident had taken place on 31.1.1999,

as such, no reliance could be placed upon the same to

determine the guilt, if any, of the accused.

13. PW­8 Dulo Ram in his statement stated that he

had employed one driver, who was from Nurpur and his name

was Jai Mal son of Mangat Ram. It has come in his statement

that on the date of alleged incident, Jai Mal son of Mangat

Ram resident of Nurpur was driver in the aforesaid vehicle.

14. Though, the omission on the part of Investigating

Officer to conduct identification parade of accused immediately

after alleged accident is sufficient to conclude that the

prosecution was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt against the accused, but even otherwise, there is no

specific evidence led on record by investigating agency that on

the date of alleged accident, offending vehicle was being driven

in a rash and negligen t manner by the accused. Mere

statements, if any, of prosecution witnesses are not sufficient

to conclude rash and negligent driving on the part of accused,

rather prosecution in this regard was under obligation to prove

rash and negligent driving by leading specific evidence in this

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 9

regard. Needless to say, rashness/negligence cannot be

presumed rather onus in this regard is heavy upon the

prosecution.

15. By now, it is well settled that specific evidence is

required to be adduced on record by the prosecution to prove

rash and negligent driving, if any, on the part of the accused.

Mere allegations are not sufficient to hold accused guilty of

having committed offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.

16. In the instant case, this Court was unable to lay its

hand to specific evidence, if any, led on record by the

prosecution suggestive of the fact that the vehicle at that

relevant time was being driven rashly and negligently that too

at high speed. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment

rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Braham Dass v.

State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, which

reads as under:­

“6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that there was no evidence on record to

show any negligence. It has not been brought on record as

to how the accused­ appellant was negligent in any way. On

the contrary what has been stated is that one person had

gone to the roof top and driver started the vehicle while he

was there. There was no evidence to show that the driver

had knowledge that any passenger was on the roof top of

the bus. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other

hand submitted that PW1 had stated that the conductor had

told the driver that one passenger was still on the roof of the

bus and the driver started the bus.

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 10

8. Section 279 deals with rash driving or riding on a

public way. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear

that it must be established that the accused was driving

any vehicle on a public way in a manner which endangered

human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other

person. Obviously the foundation in accusations under

Section 279IPC is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A

the stress is on causing death by negligenc e or

rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either

Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was

an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the

prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no

evidence led to show that any negligence was involved.”

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of

Karnataka v. Satish, 1998 (8) SCC 493, has also observed as

under:­

“1. Truck No. MYE­3236 being driven by the respondent

turned turtle while crossing a "nalla" on 25­11­1982 at

about 8.30 a.m. The accident resulted in the death of 15

persons and receipt of injuries by about 18 persons, who

were travelling in the fully loaded truck. The respondent was

charge­sheeted and tried. The learned trial court held

that the respondent drove the vehicle at a high speed and it

was on that account that the accident took place. The

respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 279,

337, 338and 304A IPC and sentenced to various terms

of imprisonment. The respondent challenged his conviction

and sentence before the Second Additional Sessions

Judge, Belgaum. While the conviction and sentence

imposed upon the respondent for the offence under Section

279 IPC was set aside, the appellate court confirmed

the conviction and sentenced the respondent for offences

under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 IPC. On a criminal

revision petition being filed by the respondent before the

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 11

High Court of Karnataka, the conviction and sentence of

the respondent for all the offences were set aside and

the respondent was acquitted. This appeal by special leave

is directed against the said judgment of acquittal passed

by the High Court of Karnataka.

2. We have examined the record and heard learned

counsel for the parties.

3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the

respondent guilty for offences under Sections 337, 338 and

304A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was

driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has

been recorded either by the trial court or by the first

appellate court to the effect that the respondent was

driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After

holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a

"high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the

doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to hold the respondent guilty.

4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high

speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness"

by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution

could give any indication, even approximately, as to what

they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term.

It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to

establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts

and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the

burden of providing everything essential to the

establishment of the charge against an accused always rests

on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence

in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved.

Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some

statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception

pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material

on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence"

could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".

There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck

turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to

whether the jerk wa s because of the uneven road or

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 12

mechanical failure. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who

inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report

is not forthcoming from the record and the Inspector was

not examined for reasons best known to the pro secution.

This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution

case.

5. There being no evidence on the record to establish

"negligence" or "rashness" in driving the truck on the part

of the respondent, it cannot be said that the view taken by

the High Court in acquitting the respondent is a

perverse view. To us it appears that the view of the High

Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a

reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not find any

reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal

fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His

bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal dismissed.”

18. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment clearly

suggests that there cannot be any presumption of rashness or

negligence, rather, onus is always upon the prosecution

to prove beyond reasonable doubt that vehicle in question was

being driven rashly and negligently. In the aforesaid

judgment, it has been specifically held that in the absence of

any material on record, no presumption of rashness or

negligence can be drawn by invoking maxim res ipsa loquitur.

19. Reliance is also placed on judgment this Court in

State of H.P. Vs. Manpreet Singh, 2008 (HP) 538, relevant

para whereof is as under:

“4. Legally, in a case of rash and negligent act, if the

prosecution is able to prove the essential ingredients of

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 13

the offence, the onus to disprove it shifts upon the

respondent to show that he had taken due care and caution

to avoid the accident. It is an admitted fact that said Shri

Daya Ram had died in the accident caused by the

respondent but still it is incumbent upon the prosecution

to prove that it was the rash and negligent act of

driving to conclude the rash and negligent driving of the

respondent. In other words, it must be proved that the rash

or negligent act of the accused was causa causans and

not causa sin qua non (cause of the proximate cause).

There must be some nexus between the death of a person

with rash or negligent act ofthe accused. According to

Rupinder Parkash (PW4) deceased was hit by the motor

cycle which was in a high speed but the speed is not criteria

to hold the act as rash or negligent. The respondent in his

statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has explained that on seeing the deceased, he

had blown the horn and he (deceased) stopped on the road.

As soon as he reached near him, he immediately tried to

cross the road and got hit. His version has been duly

corroborated by Hardeep Singh (DW1) who was a pillion

rider with him. Ajay Kumar (PW­1) has admitted this

version that the respondent had blown the horn and Daya

Ram on hearing it, had stopped for a wh ile. In these

circumstances, if a person suddenly crosses the road,

without taking note of the approaching vehicle and its driver

may not be in a position to save the accident, it will not

be possible to hold the Driver guilty of the offence. In

the instant case, the deceased knowing fully well at least

the approaching vehicle stopped on hearing the horn while

crossing the road but when the motor cycle reached near

him, he darted before it and the accident took place. Thus

in my opinion the prosecution could not prove the

offence charged against the respondent beyond

reasonable doubt that the respondent was driving the

vehicle rashly or negligently. Therefore, in these

circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 14

acquitted the respondent of the charges framed against

him. As such, no interference in the impugned judgment of

acquittal is called for. Accordingly the appeal is

dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bounds

entered upon by him at any stage of the trial.”

20. This Court is also fully conscious of judgment of

Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab versus Saurabh

Bakshi 2015 (5) SCC 182, wherein it has been held that no

leniency should be shown to reckless drivers. The Hon'ble

Apex Court has observed as follows:­

“25. Before parting with the case we are compelled to

observe that India has a disreputable record of road

accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the

drivers. They feel that they are the “Emperors of all they

survey”. Drunkenness contributes to careless driving where

the other people become their prey. The poor feel that their

lives are not safe, the pedestrians think of uncertainty and

the civilized persons drive in constant fear but still

apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people

who project themselves as “larger than life”. In such

obtaining circumstances, we are bound to observe that the

law­makers should scrutinize, relook and revisit the

sentencing policy in Section 304­A IPC, so with immense

anguish.”

21. There can not be any disagreement with the

concern expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid

judgment with regard to carelessness /recklessness of the

drivers especially under the influence of alcohol. But in the

instant case, as has been discussed above, prosecution was

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 15

not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the ill fated

vehicle was being driven by accused rashly and negligently,

rather, version put forth by prosecution appears to be

untrustworthy in view of material contradi ctions in the

statements of the alleged eye witnesses, and as such, this

Court sees no application of aforesaid law laid down by the

Apex Court in the instant case.

22. This court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs.

Dilwar Singh 2017(3) Him. L.R. 1938, has held as under:

“11. After having carefully perused statements of PW­4

and PW­7, conclusion can be safely drawn by this Court

that even PW­6 and PW­8, had no occasion to witness

the accident with their eyes, rather, they came at the

spot after noise made by PW­7. It is not understood

when PW­6 and PW­8 had not witnessed the accident,

with their eyes, how they could chase offending vehicle

allegedly being driven by respondent, because, at the

relevant time, none of the prosecution witnesses have

stated that they had disclosed registration number of

offending vehicle to PW­6 and PW­8. Even PW­1 and PW­

5 nowhere stated that PW­6 and PW­8 were informed

by them with regard to accident especially about

registration number of offending vehicle, as such, story

put forth by the prosecution does not appear to be

trustworthy.

12. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that it

has nowhere come in the statement of any of the

prosecution witnesses, who had an occasion to see the

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 16

accident with their eyes, that immediately after accident,

they informed PW­6 and PW­8 with regard to registration

number of offending vehicle as well as accused, as such,

story of accused being apprehended by PW­6 and PW­8,

is not worth lending any credence, because, admittedly,

they had no prior knowledge with regard to involvement

of offending vehicle as well as accused in the accident.

13. Leaving everything aside, this Court was unable to

find anything in the statements of prosecution

witnesses, from where it could be inferred that vehicle

was being driven rashly and negligently that too at high

speed, by the respondent, as such, this Court sees

substantial force in the defence taken by the accused in

his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC that he

had not struck vehicle against Shri Milkhi Ram and

Kurpal Ram.

14. Evidence discussed herein above is sufficient to

hold that in given facts and circumstances, two views are

possible in the present case and as such present,

accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In the present

case, prosecution story does not appear to be plausible/

trustworthy and as such same cannot be relied upon. In

this regard, I may refer to the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of UP versus

Ghambhir Singh, AIR 2005 (92) SCC 2440, whe re

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if on the same

evidence, two views are reasonably possible, the one in

favour of the accused must be preferred. The relevant

paragraph is reproduced as under:­

“6. So far as Hori Lal, PW­1 is concerned, he had

been sent to fetch a basket from the village and it

was only a matter of coincidence that while he was

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 17

returning he witnessed the entire incident. The

High Court did not consider it safe to rely on his

testimony because he evidence clearly shows that

he had an animu s against the appellants.

Moreover, he evidence was not corroborated by

objective circumstances. Though it was his

categorical case that all of them fired, no injury

caused by rifle was found, and, only two wounds

were found on the person of the deceased. Apart

from this PW­3 did not mention the presence of

either PW­1 or PW­2 at the time of occurrence. All

these circumstances do create doubt about the

truthfulness of the prosecution case. The presence

of these three witnesses becomes doubtful if their

evidence is critically scrutinized. May be it is also

possible to take a view in favour of the prosecution,

but since the High Court, on an appreciation of the

evidence on record, has recorded a finding in

favour of the accused, we do not feel persuaded to

interfere with the order of the High Court in an

appeal against acquittal. It is well settled that if on

the same evidence two views are reasonably

possible, the one in favour of the accused must be

preferred.””

23. Thus, in view of the above judgment, if on the

same evidence two views are reasonably possible, the one in

favour of the accused must be preferred. In the case at hand,

when identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle

at the time of accident has not been established, he deserves

to be extended benefit of doubt.

24. Close scrutiny of statements of the material

prosecution witnesses compels this court to conclude that no

reliance, if any, could be placed by the learned Court below on

the statements made by prosecution witnesses, being

contradictory and inconsistent with each other, as such,

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 18

learned Court below rightly did not place reliance upon the

same, while ascertaining guilt, if any, of the accused.

25. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial

evidence of eye­witness requires careful assessment and needs

to be evaluated for its creditability. Hon’ble Apex Court has

repeatedly held that since fundamental aspect of criminal

jurisprudence rests upon well established principle that “no

man is guilty until proved so”, utmost caution is required to be

exercised in dealing with the situation where there are

multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses

testifying before the Court. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that there must be a string that should join the

evidence of all the witnesses thereby satisfying the test of

consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell,

it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be

evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. In this regard,

reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex

Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka

(2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 645, wherein it has been held

as under:­

“45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal

jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the

touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis,

consistency is the keyword for upholding the

conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 19

noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh

v. State of U.P. (2008)16 SCC 686: 2008(11) SCR

286 has held:­( SCC p.704, para 14)

“14. The evidence must be tested for its

inherent consistency and the inherent

probability of the story; consistency with the

account of other witness is held to be

creditworthy; ..the probative value of such

evidence becomes eligible to be put into the

scales for a cumulative evaluation.”

In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness

requires a careful assessment and must be

evaluated for its creditability. Since the

fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests

upon the stated principle that “ no man is guilty

until proven so,” hence utmost caution is required

to be exercised in dealing with situation where

there are multiple testimonies and equally large

number of witnesses testifying before the Court.

There must be a string that should join the

evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying

the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the

witnesses.”

26. This Court also finds that all the witnesses

associated by the Police in support of its case are interested

witnesses, as such, version put forth by the complainant and

prosecution witnesses is required to be scrutinized with

utmost care and the same cannot be made basis for conviction

especially when no cogent and convincing evidence has been

led on record in support of the versions put forth by the

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 20

complainant and other prosecution witnesses, most of whom

are interested witnesses.

27. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to

interfere with judgment passed by the learned trial Court,

which is accordingly upheld. In result, appeal fails and is

accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by accused are

discharged. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge

June 21, 2019

(vikrant)

::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2022 16:37:58 :::CIS