Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rajeev Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision No.195 of 2015
Decided On : 24-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with M/s Vinod Gupta and Shwetima Dogra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Revisional jurisdiction limited; cannot re-appreciate evidence or upset concurrent findings on rash negligent driving causing death absent perversity; wrong side driving negligence per road rules; 313 CrPC statement lends credence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 & 304-A; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 187 - Rash and negligent driving causing grievous hurt and death - Driver drove jeep on wrong side of road at high speed, hit scooter dragging it 30-35 feet, fled scene without aiding injured who succumbed to craniocerebral damage - No mechanical defects in vehicles - Eyewitness testimonies corroborated by site plan showing scooter on left side (2.5 ft space) vs jeep on right (10 ft space) breaching Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - Accused admitted driving vehicle in statement under Section 313 CrPC - Suggestions in cross-examination implying presence at spot - Failure to secure medical aid violates Section 134 MV Act - Conviction and concurrent sentences (SI 2 years + fine Rs.2000/- for 304-A IPC; SI 6 months + fine Rs.1000/- for 279 IPC; SI 1 month + fine Rs.500/- for 187 MV Act, concurrent) upheld. (Paras 2-7, 19-46)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397, 401 & 482 - Revisional jurisdiction - Limited to correcting patent defects, jurisdictional errors or perversity; cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute views absent gross error - Concurrent findings not to be upset merely if another view possible - High Court not appellate court. (Paras 13-18)

(C) Evidence - Statement under Section 313 CrPC - Can lend credence to prosecution evidence, inculpatory parts usable against accused though not sole basis for conviction; defence suggestions in cross-examination binding if incriminating. (Paras 19-24)

Facts of the case:
Police challan for rash driving offences after jeep hit scooter at high speed on wrong side, injuring rider who died; driver fled but vehicle apprehended nearby, mechanical reports negative, eyewitnesses and site evidence established negligence.

Findings of Court:
Negligence proved by wrong side driving, high speed; all offence ingredients satisfied; no interference warranted with concurrent findings or sentences emphasizing deterrence.

Issues: Scope of revisional interference with concurrent conviction for rash driving causing death; sufficiency of identification and eyewitness credibility amid alleged contradictions; negligence determination via site plan and road rules; adequacy of sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional court upholds trial and appellate courts' findings absent perversity; negligence from wrong side driving per road rules, corroborated by eyewitnesses, site plan, photos, admission; fleeing without aid justifies MV Act offence; deterrent sentence needed for road fatalities.

Result: Revision dismissed.

Table of Content
1. revision against conviction for negligent driving causing death. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial proceedings and lower courts upholding conviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. challenges to identification and witness contradictions. (Para 8 , 10)
4. consideration of counsels' submissions. (Para 9 , 12)
5. accused admission and proven negligence. (Para 11)
6. revisional jurisdiction limited, no re-appreciation of evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
7. section 313 statement corroborates prosecution evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24)
8. eyewitnesses confirm jeep's rash driving. (Para 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. wrong-side driving breaches road rules, constitutes negligence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
10. documentary and medical evidence prove accident causation. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
11. failure to aid injured violates mv act. (Para 41 , 42)
12. deterrent sentence mandatory for rash driving deaths. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
13. revision dismissed, concurrent findings upheld. (Para 48 , 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 29.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, (Camp at Bilaspur) H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2014 and order of sentence dated 05.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court), 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 revision 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 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that the informant, Gian Chand (PW-1), was going towards his home on 30.01.2006 at about 10:30 am when he reached near a Pulli, a jeep bearing registration No. HP-22-2752 came at a high speed from Balhseena and hit a scooter bearing registration No. HP-23A- 1229, which was going from Barthin towards Balhseena. The scooter was dragged for 30-35 feet. Ashwani Kumar, the rider of the scooter, sustained multiple injuries. The driver of the jeep sped away from the scene. Ashwani Kumar was sent to the hospital for treatment. The matter was reported to the police. An entry No.7 (Ext.PW-10/A) was recorded in the Police Station. HC Thakur Dass (PW-11) and Constable Pardeep Kumar went to the spot for verification. ASI Ram Dass (PW-10), HC Raj Kumar (PW-8) and Constable Sashi Kant went to search the jeep. An entry (Ext.PW-10/B) was recorded. The jeep was found parked on the roadside in Chakmoh Bazaar at about 1:30 p.m. Subhash Chand (PW-7) also reached on the spot on his vehicle and told ASI Ram Dass (PW-10) that the jeep had hit the scooter and sped away from the spot. Damage was noticed to the bumper and indicator of the jeep. The driver of the jeep revealed his name as Rajeev Kumar (the accused). The police seized the jeep vide memo (Ext.PW-7/A). HC Thakur Dass (PW-11) went to the spot and recorded the informant’s statement (PW-1), and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-12/A) was registered. HC Thakur Dass (PW-11) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-11/A). Ramesh Kumar (PW-2) took the photographs of the spot (Ext.PW-2/A to Ext.PW2/E) whose negatives are Ext.PW2/F to Ext.PW2/J. HC Thakur Dass (PW-11) seized the scooter and its documents vide memos (Ext. PW-1/B and Ext.PW-3/A). HHC Dev Raj (PW-9) mechanically examined the jeep and the scooter and found that there were no mechanical defects in the vehicles, which could have led to the accident. He issued reports (Ext.PW-9/A and Ext.PW-9/B). Dr Anupam (PW-5) examined victim Ashwani Kumar and found that he had suffered multiple injuries, one of