Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Manoj Chauhan in Hit-and-Run Case
Lack of reliable evidence and identification leads to acquittal; revisional jurisdiction limits interference in concurrent findings
In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has acquitted Manoj Chauhan in a high-profile hit-and-run case. The case involved allegations of negligent driving leading to injuries to a pedestrian, Ishan Sharma. The decision came after a thorough examination of the evidence, highlighting critical deficiencies in the identification process and the absence of corroborative evidence.
The incident, dating back to December 3, 2004, involved a Santro car allegedly driven at high speed, overtaking a Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) bus and hitting Ishan Sharma. The case was initially brought before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. II, Shimla, where Chauhan was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court’s judgment was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge, Shimla, leading to the present revision petition before the High Court.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the revision, emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is primarily concerned with rectifying patent defects, jurisdictional errors, or errors of law. The court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a clear case of perversity or miscarriage of justice.
The crux of the High Court’s decision revolved around the failure to establish the identity of the accused and the vehicle involved in the accident. The initial information provided to the police lacked details of the vehicle’s registration number, and the identification of the accused was based solely on dock identification without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP).
The court noted that the informant, Shivali Sharma, and the injured, Ishan Sharma, did not provide reliable testimony regarding the vehicle's registration number or the accused’s identity. The temporary registration certificate did not corroborate the informant’s description of the vehicle’s color, and crucial witness testimonies were deemed hearsay, lacking direct knowledge of the accused’s involvement.
The judgment underscores the importance of conducting a TIP when the accused is a stranger to the witnesses, as dock identification alone is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such corroborative measures, the court found the conviction unsustainable.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, acquitting Manoj Chauhan of all charges and ordering the refund of the fine amount deposited by the accused. The decision reinforces the principle that revisional courts must adhere strictly to supervisory jurisdiction without venturing into re-appreciation of evidence unless warranted by glaring errors or injustice.
The court also directed Chauhan to furnish bail bonds effective for six months, ensuring compliance in case of further appeals or a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court.
Bottom Line:
Revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to rectifying patent defects, jurisdictional errors, or errors of law; re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible unless there is perversity or gross miscarriage of justice.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 279, 337, 338, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 397 and 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)
Manoj Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782800
