Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Singh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 181 of 2014
Decided On : 21-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Tarun Pathak, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr H.S. Rana, Advocate

Appeal against acquittal not to be interfered unless perverse or ignores evidence; mere 'high speed' without specifics insufficient for rash negligence; road rules require yielding at junctions to right-side traffic.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A; Motor Vehicles Act - Section 181 - Rash and negligent driving causing death/injuries - Ambulance collided with taxi at road junction/bye-pass chowk, fell into gorge - Trial Court acquitted holding mere 'high speed' testimony without approximation insufficient for negligence; mechanical reports showing front damage to both vehicles indicating taxi failed to yield right of way per Rules of Road Regs. 8 and 9; informant not examined warranting adverse inference; res ipsa loquitur inapplicable. (Paras 15-21, 24-27, 34)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate interference only if judgment perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no reasonable acquittal view possible despite double presumption of innocence. (Paras 12-14)

(C) Evidence - Speed testimony - 'High speed' relative term, meaningless without witness specifying approximation or context; speed alone no criterion for rashness/negligence. (Paras 24-27)

Facts of the case:
Prosecution alleged ambulance driven rashly/negligently at high speed hit taxi at junction causing ambulance to plunge into gorge with fatalities/injuries; eyewitnesses claimed high speed but no estimates; accused claimed taxi hit ambulance; trial court acquitted, state appealed.

Findings of Court:
Trial court's reasonable view upheld; no negligence proved against ambulance driver; vehicles mechanically sound; collision dynamics per site plan/road rules/photographs/mechanical reports point to taxi's fault.

Issues: Proof of rash/negligent driving via speed testimony and vehicle fall; scope of appellate review in acquittal appeals; right of way obligations at unregulated junctions; effect of unexamined informant.

Ratio Decidendi: Witnesses cannot opine on negligence (fact only); high speed vague sans quantification/context; junction rules mandate slowing/giving way to right-side traffic; front-to-front damage falsifies prosecution collision narrative; withheld key witness invites adverse inference; acquittal sustainable if plausible on evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. prosecution case: ambulance high speed caused collision, injuries, deaths. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. accused denial; trial court found insufficient negligence proof. (Para 5 , 6)
3. state: witnesses prove rash driving, res ipsa loquitur applies. (Para 7 , 9)
4. defense: high speed vague, informant withheld, probable acquittal view. (Para 10)
5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or ignores evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. indica violated road rules by not yielding at junction. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. eyewitnesses' vague 'high speed' claims unreliable. (Para 22 , 23 , 29)
8. high speed alone insufficient for rash/negligent driving. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
9. passenger testimony hearsay, not proving negligence. (Para 30 , 31)
10. witnesses can't opine negligence; adverse inference on informant. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
11. appeal dismissed upholding trial court's reasonable view. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.12.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (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, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). (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 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC and Section 181 of the MV Act. It was asserted that the informant, Ved Prakash, is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38-FT- 1281, which was being plied as a taxi. He was going from Kalka to Shimla on 13.5.2006. When he reached Dohri Diwar, Bye Pass Chowk, at about 9.45 AM, an Ambulance bearing registration No. HP-14-8865 came from Barog Bye Pass at high speed and hit the car. The Ambulance fell into a gorge after the accident. The driver identified himself as Mohinder Singh. The occupants of the Ambulance sustained injuries. They were sent to the hospital. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused, Mohinder, and the high speed of the Ambulance. The matter was reported to the police. An entry in the daily diary (Ex.PW12/A) was recorded. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW12) and other police officials went to verify the correctness of the information. Rakesh Kumar filed an application (Ex.PW12/B) for the medical examination of the injured and obtained MLCs (Ex.PA1 to Ex.PA8) of the injured. Manpreet Kaur had died in the accident. Her postmortem examination report (Ex.PW10/A) was issued by Dr Raj Kumar (PW10), who found that she had died due to intracranial haemorrhage leading to coma because of a temporal bone fracture within four hours of the examination. Amanpreet Singh also died in the accident. His postmortem report (Ex.PB) was obtained. Balbeer succumbed to his injuries at PGI, Chandigarh. His postmortem (Ex.PC) was obtained. HC Rajvinder Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. He went to the spot and seized the Ambulance bearing registration No. HP-14- 8865 vide memo (Ex.PW5/A). Yoginder Kumar (PW6) mechanically examined the vehicles bearing registration Nos. HR-38-FT-1281 and the Ambulance bearing registration No. HP-14-8865 and found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicles that could have led to the accident. He issued mechanical reports (Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B). SI MI Khan went to the spot and took photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P9) whose negatives are Ex. P10 to Ex. P18. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/A) and seized the vehicles vide memos (Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B). He obtained the RC, Log Book and Authority Letter of Ambulance bearing registration No. HP-14-8865 from