Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Dhruv Dev - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 40 of 2015
Decided On : 24-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr Lakshay Thakur, Advocate

In acquittal appeals for rash driving, reversal warranted if trial view perverse ignoring objective evidence like site plans, photos showing wrong-side driving, reliable related witnesses, and accused's admission; overtaking breaching road rules proves negligence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337, 338 - Rash and negligent driving by overtaking another vehicle and crossing central line to wrong side causing injuries - Appeal against acquittal - Trial court acquitted relying on hostile occupant witness from overtaking car, relationship of eyewitnesses, minor contradictions, available space for motorcycle - High Court reversed holding occupant witness impeached by prior inconsistent statement under Evidence Act Section 155(3), site plan and photographs showing vehicle on wrong side, related witnesses' testimonies reliable and not discardable merely for relationship, accused admitted driving under CrPC Section 313, breach of Rules of the Road Regulations 1989 Rule 6 on overtaking - Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction recorded. (Paras 6, 15-21, 24-26, 30, 36-44, 48-51)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 313, 378, 386 - Statement under Section 313 admitting driving can corroborate prosecution evidence though not sole basis for conviction - Appeal against acquittal permissible if trial court view patently perverse, ignores material evidence like site plan, photographs, or no reasonable person could reach it. (Paras 12-14, 32-36)

(C) Indian Evidence Act - Section 155(3) - Hostile witness confronted with prior inconsistent statement stands discredited to extent of contradiction - Cannot be basis to discard prosecution case. (Paras 16-18)

(D) Witnesses - Related witnesses not interested merely by relationship - Testimony requires careful scrutiny but reliable if cogent, consistent, corroborated; not to be rejected solely for relationship. (Paras 24-30)

Facts of the case:
Motorcycle with driver and pillion rider hit by car overtaking another vehicle near spot, crossing to wrong side causing injuries - Investigation with medicals, site plan, photographs, mechanical inspection showing no vehicle defects - Trial court acquitted accused driver - State appealed.

Findings of Court:
Rash and negligent overtaking breaching road rules direct cause of accident - Injuries proved simple for one, grievous for other - Acquittal perverse ignoring objective evidence and reliable testimonies.

Issues: Whether trial court erred in discarding prosecution evidence due to hostile witness, relationships, contradictions, space availability; standards for appellate interference in acquittal; reliability of related witnesses; proof of negligence from objective evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate court interferes with acquittal only if perverse or ignores material evidence; related witness evidence scrutinized cautiously but accepted if reliable and corroborated by site plan, photographs; driving to wrong side by overtaking oncoming traffic breaches road rules constituting negligence per se.

Result: Appeal allowed - Acquittal set aside - Accused convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 - Summoned for sentencing.

Table of Content
1. rash car overtaking hit motorcycle causing injuries. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial acquitted doubting related witnesses and contradictions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. state challenges perverse acquittal; defence upholds it. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. impeached witness discredited; photos confirm wrong-side car. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. eyewitnesses prove negligent overtaking on wrong side. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 31)
7. related witnesses reliable if scrutinized for consistency. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. section 313 admission corroborates accused drove vehicle. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
9. overtaking dangerously crossing centerline constitutes negligence. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
10. minor contradictions do not discredit prosecution core. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
11. rash driving proved causing simple and grievous hurt. (Para 48 , 49 , 50)
12. appeal allowed; convict accused under sections 279,337,338 ipc. (Para 51 , 52)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.2014, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 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 presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. It was asserted that informant Sada Nand (PW2) was returning to his home on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. HP-37B-2988, which was being driven by Banti @ Vivek Kumar (PW3). A car bearing the registration no. HP-39B-2236 overtook another car near Dairy Farm and hit the Motorcycle. The informant Sada Nanad (PW2) and Vivek Kumar (PW3) sustained injuries. Baldev Singh (PW5) took the injured to the Hospital. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing the registration no. HP-39B-2236. An intimation was given to the police regarding the accident, and an entry (Ex.PB2) was recorded in the daily diary. ASI Roop Lal (PW8) went to the hospital to verify the correctness of the information. He filed an application (Ex.PW8/A) for conducting a medical examination of the injured and obtained the MLCs of Sada Nand (Ex. PA) and Vivek Kumar (Ex. PB). ASI Roop Lal recorded Sada Nand’s statement (Ex.PW2/A) and sent it to the police station where the FIR was registered. ASI Roop Lal went to the spot and clicked the photographs (Ex.PA1 to PA4). He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW8/B) and seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-37B-2988 and its documents vide memos (Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW3/A). He also seized the car bearing registration No. HP-37B-2236 along with documents vide memo (Ex.PW1/A). Prem Singh (PW6) examined the vehicles and found that there was no defect in the vehicles, which could have led to the accident. He issued mechanical reports (Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B). Vivek Kumar was referred to a higher institution for his treatment, and his medical history (Ex.PE and Ex.PF) was obtained. The statements of prosecution 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. The 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, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to pro