Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Rajneesh Kumar - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 156 of 2013
Decided On : 02-03-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant/State :Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr Shashwat Dadwal, Advocate

In acquittal appeals, no interference unless perverse; 'high speed' without quantification or collision corroboration fails to prove rash/negligent driving; trial court's reasonable view upheld.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 201 - Rash and negligent driving - Causing hurt by rash or negligent act - Causing disappearance of evidence - Mere allegation of 'high speed' without approximate speed mentioned by witnesses insufficient to establish rashness or negligence - No mechanical defect but absence of damage to rear of auto or front of truck in reports and photographs belies claim of collision - Punctured front tyres of truck unexplained - Prosecution witnesses materially contradict on speed, collision, and driver identity - Appeal against acquittal - Interference warranted only if trial court judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or conclusion no reasonable person could reach - Two views possible; acquittal not to be disturbed. (Paras 6, 12-14, 17-22, 30)

(B) Evidence - Witnesses may depose facts seen but cannot opine on negligence, which is inference for court - 'High speed' relative term requiring quantification. (Paras 22-29)

(C) Motor accident cases - Speed alone not criterion for rashness or negligence; depends on prevailing situation. (Paras 24-26)

Facts of the case:
Prosecution alleged truck hit auto from behind at high speed causing auto to fall into gorge and injure passenger; preceding motorcycle lost control; driver fled. Investigation included site plan, medicals, mechanical inspection, photos. Trial court acquitted due to contradictions, vague speed, no proof of hit or driver identity. State appealed asserting misappreciation of evidence and eyewitness identification.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt; trial court view reasonable; no perversity warranting reversal.

Issues: Proof of rash/negligent driving via high speed; establishment of collision and driver identity; scope of appellate review in acquittal appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Vague 'high speed' without specifics or corroboration from objective evidence like mechanical reports and photos insufficient for conviction; witnesses' negligence opinions inadmissible; reinforced presumption of innocence post-acquittal limits interference to perverse findings only.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. trial acquitted due to contradictions on speed, identity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments on appellate interference with acquittal. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. informant failed to confirm truck-auto collision. (Para 15 , 16)
5. no mechanical or photo evidence of rear collision. (Para 17 , 18)
6. passenger testimony uncorroborated by physical evidence. (Para 19 , 20)
7. punctured tyres doubt truck's involvement in accident. (Para 21)
8. high speed vague without approximate numerical value. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
9. witnesses cannot opine on negligence; court decides. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
10. uphold reasonable trial acquittal; dismiss appeal. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (1), Kangra, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (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 appeal are that the police filed a charge sheet against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant Praveen Kumar (PW6) and Bablesh Kumar were riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP- 40A-4238 on 12.05.2008. An auto bearing registration No. HP40A-4037 was moving ahead of the motorcycle. An applied for a truck came from behind at a high speed and hit the auto. The informant also lost control of the motorcycle, and the motorcycle fell. The injured were taken to the hospital. The truck driver stopped the truck at some distance and ran away from the spot. The incident occurred due to the high speed and the negligence of the truck driver. The matter was reported to the police. Pritam Chand (PW10) went to the spot for verification. He recorded the statement of Praveen Kumar (Ext.PW6/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (PA) was registered. He filed an application (Ext.PW10/B) for the medical examination of the injured. Dr Shailja (PW7) examined Dhani Ram @ Anku and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. She issued the MLC (Ext.PW7/A). The injured was admitted to the surgical ward, and a treatment summary (Ext.PW9/A) was issued by Dr R. Bharti (PW9). HC Pritam Chand went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW10/C). He seized the truck vide memo (Ext.PW2/C) and the auto vide memo (Ext.PW2/A). Ashok Kumar (PW5) took the photographs (Ext.PW5/A to Ext.PW5/F). Rajinder Kumar (PW8) examined the truck and auto. He found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext.PW8/A and Ext.PW8/B). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to frame the charges for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 201 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Raju Loderia (PW1) was driving the auto. Om Parkash (PW2) and Bhagwan Dass (PW4) witnessed various recoveries. Dhani Ram (PW3) was travelling as a passenger in the auto and sustained injuries. Ashok Kumar (PW5) took the photographs. Praveen Kumar (PW6) is the informant. Dr Shailja (PW7) examined the injured. Rajinder Kumar (PW8) examined the vehicles. Dr R. Bharti (PW9) treated the injured in the surgical ward and is