The court held that concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding negligence and causation in a motor vehicle accident are binding unless proven erroneous, reinforcing limitations on the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.2.2026, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, HP (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 6.12.2014 and order of sentence dated 8.12.2014, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, HP, were upheld. (Parties shall 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 petition 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 304A of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). It was asserted that Suman Kumar (PW8) was going towards Beat No. 2 on 13.6.2010, at about 9.20 AM. A truck bearing registration No. HP-72-1603 came from Mandi at a high speed and hit the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-31A-2360, which was moving ahead of the truck. The motorcycle was dragged for a distance of 80 mtrs. The driver stopped the truck at some distance and ran away from the spot. The accident occurred due to the high speed and negligence of the truck driver. An intimation was given to the police. An entry No. 13A was recorded in the Police Station. HC Jagdish Chand (PW3), HHC Milkhi Ram (PW5) and ASI Satish (PW4) were sent for verification. ASI Satish Kumar (PW4) recorded the statement of Suman Kumar (Ex.PW4/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW4/B) was registered. He took the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P6) and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW4/C). Bharti Sharma, the pillion rider, had died in the accident. ASI Satish Kumar conducted the inquest on her dead body and prepared the report (Ex.PW4/D). Dr Nag Raj (PW6) conducted her postmortem examination and found that the cause of death was a burst abdomen and crush injuries to the gut and spleen, leading to multiple lacerations to these organs. He issued a report (Ex.PW6/A). The truck bearing registration No. HP-72-1603 and motorcycle bearing registration No. HP31A-2360 were seized vide memos (Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW1/A). HC Devkinandan (PW2) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicles and found that there was no defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued a report (Ex.PW2/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. 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 and 304A of the IPC , to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. Narinder Kumar (PW1) was driving the motorcycle. HC Devkinandan (PW2) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. HC Jagdish Chand (PW3) witnessed the recovery. ASI Satish Kumar (PW4) investigated the matter. HHC Milkhi Ram (PW5) carried the rukka to the Police Station. Dr Nag Raj (PW6) conducted the postmortem examination of Bharti Sharma. Inspector Bahadur Singh (PW7) prepared the challan. HC Suman Kumar (PW8) is an eyewitness and the informant.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that the documents were taken into possession at Dharamkanta at Dadour. A false case was registe