STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ASHOK CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal dated 21.9.2017, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 4 Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No. 128-2 of 15/14, whereby respondentaccused (hereinafter 'accused') came to be acquitted of the notice of accusation put to him for having committed offences punishable under Section 279 IPC, appellant-State has approached this Court by way of instant appeal, seeking therein conviction of accused for having committed aforesaid offence, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal.

(2.) Necessary facts as emerge from the record for the proper adjudication of the case are that the complainant namely Suraj Kumar (PW-1) vide his statement i.e. exhibit PW-14/A recorded under Section 154 CrPC, alleged that on 8.2014, at about 2 pm, near Government Degree College, Sanjauli, IGMC road, accused was driving Maruti Car bearing registration No. PB-02G-0829 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he lost control over the vehicle and ultimately dashed his vehicle with HRTC taxi bearing registration No. HP-02A-0736, causing damage to the same. Complainant further alleged that at that relevant time, accused was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor and he did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. On the basis of aforesaid report, a formal FIR dated 23.5.2017, exhibit PW-11/A came to be registered against the accused under Section 279 IPC, in Police Station Sadar, Shimla. After completion of investigation, police presented Challan in the competent Court of law i.e. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 4, Shimla, who being satisfied that prima facie</i> case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to him for having committed offences punishable under Section 279 IPC and Sections 181 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence collected on record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed aforesaid offences and acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court, by way of instant appeal, praying therein for conviction of accused, after setting aside judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that close scrutiny of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution would go to show that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged accident, vehicle in question was being driven by the accused under the influence of liquor and he dashed his vehicle against HRTC taxi, thus causing damage to the same.