SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Ramesh Chand - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision No.193 of 2015 
Decided On : 14-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate
For the Respondent/ State:Mr. Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General

Revisional court acquits of rash driving/death charges where site plan shows victim vehicle on wrong side, speed unquantified, negligence opinions inadmissible; upholds conviction for fleeing without aiding injured.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 337 and 304-A and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 187 - Rash and negligent driving causing hurt and death - Conviction by trial and appellate courts - In revision, accused acquitted of IPC offences but conviction under Section 187 MV Act upheld - Identity of driver proved by truck owner’s unchallenged testimony - Site plan showed motorcycle on right side (wrong side for its direction) breaching Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 Rule 2, truck on left (correct) side - No evidence of negligence by truck driver: ‘high speed’ unquantified and relative; witness statements of ‘negligence’ inadmissible as opinion; dragging marks post-impact after fleeing; driver sped away violating Section 134 MV Act duty to aid injured. (Paras 19-47)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction supervisory, not appellate; limited to patent defects, jurisdictional errors, perversity; no reappreciation of evidence absent glaring miscarriage of justice. (Paras 13-17)

(C) Evidence - Unchallenged testimony in cross-examination cannot be disputed later; hostile witness testimony not discarded wholly, credible parts acceptable if corroborated. (Paras 18-22)

Facts of the case:
Motorcycle with pillion rider hit head-on by oncoming truck at high speed per witnesses; rider died from haemorrhagic shock, pillion injured; truck fled scene without aiding; mechanical inspection showed no vehicle defects; owner confirmed accused as driver.

Findings of Court:
No rash/negligent driving by accused proved; motorcycle on wrong side primary cause; accused liable only for fleeing without providing medical aid.

Issues: Proof of accused’s negligent driving (side of road, speed, causation); admissibility of witness opinions on negligence; scope of revisional interference with concurrent findings; violation of post-accident aid duty.

Ratio Decidendi: Lower courts erred interpreting site plan perversely (truck not on wrong side); negligence not proved by relative ‘high speed’, inadmissible opinions, or post-fleeing marks; driving on wrong side itself negligent; unchallenged driver identification reliable; revisional court corrects legal errors without reweighing evidence generally.

Result: Revision partly allowed; acquitted under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC; conviction and 15-day sentence under Section 187 MV Act upheld.

Table of Content
1. accident caused by truck hitting motorcycle negligently. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution witnesses prove case; accused denies. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. lower courts convict for rash driving and death. (Para 6 , 7)
4. accused contests identity, negligence; state defends conviction. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
5. revisional court limits to patent errors, no re-appreciation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. unchallenged testimony identifies accused as driver. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. site plan shows motorcycle on wrong side. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
8. witnesses confirm no truck wrong-side driving. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. right-side driving violates road rules, negligent. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. high speed alone not negligence proof. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
11. witness negligence opinions inadmissible. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
12. no evidence proves accused's rashness. (Para 43 , 44)
13. fleeing scene violates duty to aid. (Para 45 , 46)
14. acquit ipc charges; uphold mv act conviction. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.(learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jubbal, District Shimla, 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 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). It was asserted that Arun Kumar (since deceased) was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-10A-0606 on 10.06.2009, and the informant Satish Kumar (PW-1) was sitting as a pillion rider. A truck bearing registration No. HP11B-4617 came from the opposite side at a high speed and hit the motorcycle at Bohli Kainchi at about 5:30 p.m.. The truck sped away towards Hatkoti. Arun Kumar and Satish Kumar fell and sustained multiple injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver. An intimation was given to the police. The police recorded an entry (Ext.PW-11/A) in the Daily Diary. HC Amrit Singh (PW-15), Constable Shishi Ram (PW-12) and Constable Sunil Kumar went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. HC Amrit Singh (PW-15) recorded the statement (Ext.PW-1/A) of Satish Kumar (PW-1), which was sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-13/B) was registered. The injured and deceased were taken to the hospital. An application (Ext.PW-10/E) was filed for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr Sanjeev Gupta (PW-10) conducted the medical examination of the injured and found that he had suffered simple injuries. He issued MLC (Ext.PW10/C). The inquest on the dead body was conducted, and a report (Ext.PW-10/B) was issued. An application was filed for conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Dr Sanjeev Gupta (PW-10) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and found that the death was caused by comma and haemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding. He issued the report(Ext.PW-10/A). HC Amrit Singh (PW-15) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-15/A). He found 12-foot marks of dragging the motorcycle by the truck. The truck was parked at Bohli Nala. The driver was missing. The Registration Certificate (Ext. PW-2/C), insurance certificate (Ext. PW-2/D) and logbook (Ext. PW-2/E) of the truck were taken into possession vide memo (Ext.PW-2/B. The Registration Certificate Ext.PW-9/B), and insurance certificate (Ext.PW-9/C) were taken into possession vide memo (Ext.PW-9/A) of the motorcycle. Ph

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top