Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Chauhan - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.298 of 2012
Decided On : 14-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Ms Reeta Hingmang, Advocate.

Acquittal under IPC Sections 279/337 upheld as site plan showed accused vehicle on correct side, witnesses' vague 'high speed'/negligence opinions inadmissible, no specific negligence proved; appellate interference only for perversity.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 337 - Rash driving endangering human life and causing hurt by rash/negligent act - Appeal against acquittal - Site plan depicting car on correct (western) side of road while auto on wrong (western) side despite direction of travel - Auto driver lacking valid license - No mechanical defects in vehicles - Witnesses' bare statements of 'high speed' (undefined) and 'negligence' constitute inadmissible opinions - No other specific acts of negligence proved - Trial Court rightly acquitted as case not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Appellate Court not to interfere with reasonable view even if another possible. (Paras 14, 18-29)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Double presumption of innocence - Interference only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, or no reasonable view except guilt possible - Appellate Court may reappraise evidence but must consider if trial view possible. (Paras 12-13)

Facts of the case:
Informant and auto passengers injured when car allegedly came at high speed from opposite direction on wrong side hitting auto. Investigation revealed site plan placing both vehicles on western side (car correct, auto wrong), no vehicle defects, auto driver unlicensed. Prosecution witnesses deposed to negligence/high speed without specifics. Trial Court acquitted citing contradictions and doubtful case. State appealed asserting credible witness testimonies and negligence proved.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to establish negligence; site plan and evidence supported reasonable doubt; trial Court's view not perverse.

Issues: Whether specific negligence proved beyond vague witness opinions on high speed/negligence; whether trial Court's acquittal perverse warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Driving on wrong side constitutes negligence but here indicated for auto; witnesses cannot opine on negligence or undefined high speed - inferences for Court; speed alone not criterion for rashness/negligence without context; appellate interference limited to perversity cases.

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. prosecution alleged car negligence hit auto causing injuries. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. trial court acquitted due to witness contradictions. (Para 6)
3. state argues trial ignored consistent negligence testimonies. (Para 7 , 9)
4. defence urges no interference with reasonable acquittal. (Para 10)
5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
6. site plan shows auto on wrong road side. (Para 14)
7. wrong-side driving constitutes per se negligence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
8. post-accident photos do not prove negligence. (Para 18)
9. witnesses cannot opine on driver's negligence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
10. high speed requires specific evidence beyond vague terms. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
11. no proven negligence warrants upholding acquittal. (Para 28 , 29)
12. appeal dismissed; bail bonds directed. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.04.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla, 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 and 337 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 and 337 IPC. It was asserted that the informant Partap Thakur (PW-1) was going towards Rampur Bushahar in an Auto bearing registration No. HP50-0540. The Auto reached near Bushahar Regency at 1:20 p.m. A Car bearing registration No. HP38A-6550 came from the Rampur side at a high speed and hit the Auto on the wrong side of the road. The Auto was damaged. The driver of the auto, Bashir Ahmad (PW-4), the passengers of Auto Kishore Parmar (PW-2), Ramesh Chauhan (PW-3), and informant Partap Singh (PW-1) sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. An entry No.19 was recorded in the Police Station. HC Shashi Bhushan (PW-10) and Constable Devi Singh (P-7) were sent to verify the correctness of the information. The informant made a statement (Ext. PW-1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-7/A) was registered. HC Sashi Bhushan filed an application (Ext.PW-10/A) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr Rajeswari Azad (PW-8) medically examined Partap Thakur (PW-1), Kishore Parmar (PW-2), Ramesh Chauhan (PW-3), and Bashir Ahmad (PW-4) and found that they had sustained simple injuries, which could have been caused within six hours of examination in a roadside accident. He issued MLCs (Ext.PW-8/A, Ext.PW-8/B, Ext.PW- 8/C, and Ext.PW-8D). HC Shashi Bhushan (PW-10) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-10/B). He seized the car bearing registration no. HP38A-6550 vide memo (Ext.PW- 5/A). He also seized the Auto bearing registration No. HP-50- 0540 along with its documents vide Memo (Ex.PW-4/A). Trilok Chand (PW-9) examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them, which could have led accident. He issued the reports (Ext.PW-9/A and Ext.PW9/B). The Auto was handed over on Sapurdari vide memo (Ext.PW-5/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 and 337 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecut