Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Jog Raj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 239 of 2015
Decided On : 04-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Mandohtra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and affirmed the findings of lower courts regarding the accused's negligence in the fatal accident.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 304A - Conviction for negligent driving leading to death - Accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment; defense failed to substantiate claims of road crossing by the victim - Testimonies reviewed corroborate the finding of negligence. (Paras 6, 34, 40)

(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of review by Higher Court - High Court does not reanalyze evidence unless glaring errors are established. (Paras 13, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the conviction for the death of Neetu, hit by a tempo, asserting the court’s error in evaluating witness testimonies.

Findings of Court:
The trial courts' reliance on testimony corroborated victim's non-crossing of the road and established the accident's nature.

Issues: The key questions related to witness credibility, the accused's negligence, and applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the constraints of revisional jurisdiction and emphasized the evidence's alignment with negligent driving standards.

Result: Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palampur, District Kangra (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 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that Neetu, the daughter of informant Bindu (PW1), had gone to the school on 24.05.2006. Pooja (PW2) and Jyoti told the informant that a tempo had hit Neetu, she had sustained multiple injuries, and she was taken to the hospital. The matter was reported to the police. HC Dev Raj (PW7) went to the hospital for verification of the information. He recorded the statement of Bindu (Ext.PW1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW7/A) was registered. Injured Neetu was medically examined, and an MLC (Ext.PA) was issued, mentioning that she had sustained multiple injuries. X-rays were advised, and the final opinion was reserved. HC Dev Raj (PW7) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW7/C). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP68-6697 vide memo (Ext.PW6/A). Anil Kumar (PW9) took the photographs of the spot (Ext.PW9/A-1 to Ext.PW9/A-3) whose negatives are Ext.PW9/A4 to Ext.PW9/A6. Rajinder Singh (PW5) mechanically examined the vehicle and found that there was no mechanical defect in it, which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW5/A). Neetu subsequently succumbed to her injuries. An application (Ext.PW7/H) was filed for conducting her postmortem examination, and the report (Ext. PB) was obtained. The photograph of the dead body (Ext.PW7/J) was taken. 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 summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. Bindu (PW1) reported the matter to the police. Pooja (PW2) and Ganesh Thapa (PW4) are eyewitnesses. Raj Kumar (PW3) did not support the prosecution’s case. Rajinder Singh (PW5) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle. Saman Singh (PW6) is the witness to recovery. HC Dev Raj (PW7) conducted the investigation. Ambia Ram (PW8) is the owner of the vehicle. Anil Kumar (PW9) took the photographs.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. HP68-6697 on 24.05.2006 at about 2:15 pm. He stated that the accident occurred when Neetu tried to cross the road from the rear side of the tempo. She struck against the tempo and sustained injuries. He denied the rest of the prosecution’s case. He claimed that he was innocent, and a false case was lodged against him. He stated that he wanted to lead the defence evidence. However, no evidence was produced, and a statement was made on behalf of the accused that no evidence was to be led.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the accused admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The plea taken by the accused that Neetu tried to cross the road and the accident occurred due to her sudden