Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Vijay Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 251 of 2014
Decided On : 14-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tractor negligently hit motorcycle causing death, injuries. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution evidence through witnesses; accused denies fault. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts found rash driving on wrong side. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. debate on negligence proof, speed, sentence excessiveness. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited; no re-appreciation of evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. site plan, photos confirm tractor on wrong side. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. wrong-side driving and skid marks prove negligence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. mechanical defect post-accident not causative; brakes unused. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. discredited hostile witness testimony wholly discarded. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. injuries proved; no-insurance violates mv act. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 11. ipc convictions for rash/negligent driving upheld. (Para 39) |
| 12. 304a sentence reduced to 18 months sans aggravators. (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. (2), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, 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, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act). It was asserted that the informant Jagjit Singh (PW5) was running a hotel at Padyalag. A tractor bearing registration No. HP 69-0314 came towards Padyalag, and a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP23B-1052 came from Padyalag at about 11 am. Vijay Kumar (accused) was driving the tractor at a high speed and hit the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP23B-1052. The motorcyclist, Sikander Kumar, died on the spot, and the pillion rider, Jai Kumar, sustained injuries. Jai Kumar was taken to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ext.PW17/A) was recorded in the police station. SI/SHO Dugalu Ram (PW16), Constable Rajesh Kumar and Constable Sanjay Kumar went to the spot for verification. Dugalu Ram (PW16) recorded the statement of the informant (Ext.PW5/A) as per his version and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW16/A) was registered. Ranjeet Singh (PW14) took the photographs of the spot (Ext.PW14/A to Ext.PW14/G). Dugalu Ram conducted the inquest of the dead body and prepared the postmortem report (Ext.PW16/C). He filed an application (Ext.PW12/E) for conducting the postmortem examination of the deceased. Doctor Kamlesh Sharma (PW12) conducted the postmortem examination of Sikander Kumar and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused in a Motor Vehicle accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW12/D). He also medically examined Jai Kumar (PW13) and found that Jai Kumar had sustained simple and grievous injuries. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW12/B) and referred the injured to IGMC, Shimla, for further treatment. Dugalu Ram (PW16) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW16/D) and seized the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-1052 vide memo (Ext.PW1/A) and the tractor bearing registration No. HP69-0314 vide memo (Ext.PW1/B). Kashmir Singh (PW10) mechanically examined the tractor and the motorcycle and did not find any defect in them which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW10/A). Vijay Kumar produced his driving license, insurance, and permit for the tractor, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW9/A). The registration certificate
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 limited to patent errors/perversity, not re-appreciating evidence; driving on wrong side of road negligence causing accident, upheld conviction but redu....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; lower courts erred ignoring mechanical reports' inconsistencies on vehicle damage and witness speed contradiction, creating reasonable doubt on rash dri....
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent conviction for rash driving on wrong side causing deaths absent perversity, despite vehicle registration ambiguity, as eyewitnesses re....
The court held that concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding negligence and causation in a motor vehicle accident are binding unless proven erroneous, reinforcing limitations on the scope of....
Negligence while driving under intoxication resulting in damage to property is a valid ground for conviction under criminal law, demonstrating the importance of maintaining road safety standards.
Revisional jurisdiction confines to patent defects or perversity, not reappreciating evidence; concurrent findings on driver's identity and negligence in reversing without safety check upheld, sustai....
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC limits High Court to correcting patent defects or perversity; cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent conviction absent jurisdictional error or miscarriage....
Negligence in driving leading to injury constitutes a violation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, affirming strict liability for road traffic offenses.
The revisional court exercises limited jurisdiction, focusing only on clear legal errors while upholding convictions based on substantial evidence of negligence.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
