Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Avinash Sood - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.4022 of 2013
Decided On : 13-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:M/s Anjali Soni Verma and Anita Tegta, Advocate.

Mere 'high speed' testimony without specifics or skid marks insufficient for rash driving conviction; at intersections, side-road entrants must yield to main highway traffic; reasonable acquittals not interfered in appeal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 338 - Rash and negligent driving causing hurt - Accident at road intersection between tanker proceeding on national highway and motorcycle entering from side road - Mere testimony of witnesses that vehicle driven at 'high speed' without approximation of speed or skid marks insufficient to prove rashness or negligence - Speed alone not criterion for rashness; depends on situation - Witnesses cannot opine on negligence; inference for court - Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - Rules 8 and 9 - Driver entering intersection must slow down, not enter without ensuring safety, and yield to traffic on main road or from right - Motorcyclist entering from left onto highway failed to yield, causing accident - Prosecution failed to prove negligence of tanker driver. (Paras 16-30)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court has full power to review evidence but double presumption of innocence; interferes only if judgment patently perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable view supports acquittal - Trial court view reasonable, no interference. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
Tanker proceeding on national highway from one direction collided at chowk with motorcycle entering from side road carrying two persons who sustained injuries. Police challan under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC. Investigation showed no mechanical defects, site plan indicated intersection. Trial court acquitted holding motorcyclist negligent for not yielding; State appealed.

Findings of Court:
No negligence by tanker driver proved; accident due to motorcyclist failing to take precautions at intersection; trial court judgment sustainable.

Issues: Whether prosecution proved rash and negligent driving by tanker driver based on witness statements; whether trial court erred in holding motorcyclist negligent and scope of appellate interference with acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: 'High speed' relative term needing quantification; witnesses depose facts not opinions on negligence; at unregulated intersections, priority to main road and right-side traffic; reasonable acquittal view not to be disturbed.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. prosecution alleged tanker driver's rash negligence in accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. dispute over trial court's evidence appreciation and negligence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. appellate interference only if acquittal patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. 'high speed' insufficient without quantification for negligence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. witnesses cannot opine on driver's negligence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. motorcyclist must yield to highway vehicle from right. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. trial court's motorcyclist negligence view reasonable. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
8. appeal dismissed; acquittal order upheld. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the accused (respondent before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338 of 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 against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. It was asserted that ASI Mukesh Kumar (PW-3), Constable Navdeep Sidhu and Constable Shakti Chand were present at Khabli Dosadka 24.04.2009 for traffic checking. They received information that a truck and motorcycle had met with an accident at Hanuman Chowk, and found that a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB08AB/TEM/4771 was lying in the middle of the chowk. A tanker bearing registration HP68-2024 was parked at a distance of 100 yards on the Hoshiarpur Road near Petrol Pump. No person was found on the spot. They found on enquiry that the injured person was taken to the Hospital. ASI Mukesh Kumar and Constable Navdeep Sidhu went to the Hospital, where the injured Rajeev Kumar (PW-5) made a statement that he and his friend Ashwani Kumar were distributing the cards for the marriage of their friend, Amit Kumar. When they reached Hanuman Chowk, a Tanker bearing registration No. HP-68-2024 came at a high speed and hit the motorcycle. Avinash Sood (accused) was driving the Tanker. The Tanker was stopped after 100 yards from the place of the accident. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. Statement (Ext.PW-3/A) was reduced into writing and was sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW3/B) was registered. SI Mukesh Kumar (PW-3) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-3/D). Dharam Pal (PW-1) took the photographs (Ext.P1 to Ext.P9) whose negatives are Ext.P10 to Ext.P18. Rajeev Kumar and Amit Kumar were medically examined, and their MLCs (Ext.PD and Ext.PE) were obtained. Motorcycle and its documents were seized vide memo (Ext.PC). HC Chaman Lal (PW-2) mechanically examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them, which could have led to the accident. He issued reports (Ext.PW-2/A and Ext.PW-2/B). The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the 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, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. Dharam Pal (PW-1) took the photographs. HC Chaman Lal (PW-2) mechanically examined both vehicles. Mukesh Kumar (PW-3) investigated the matter. Smt. Sukma (PW-4) is the owner of the tanker who proved that the accused was driving the