Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Singh alias Sethi - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.4016 of 2013
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.AjitSharma, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate

Driver negligent under Sections 279, 304-A IPC for reversing without safety check per Rule 31, crushing child; LMV license valid for <7500kg vehicle; acquittal reversed as perverse.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304-A; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 181; Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 - Rule 31 - Rash and negligent driving causing death - Driver reversed tipper without ensuring safety, crushing child under rear wheels - Post-mortem confirmed compression injuries to skull and face - Negligence proved as driver failed to satisfy himself no danger or inconvenience to persons before reversing - Constitutes offence under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. (Paras 22, 24, 25, 26)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 181 - Driving heavy vehicle without license - Vehicle laden weight 7450 kg falls within light motor vehicle category (under 7500 kg) - License for light motor vehicle permits driving such transport vehicle - No offence under Section 181. (Paras 27, 28)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 378, 386 - Appeal against acquittal - Interference only if judgment patently perverse, based on misreading/omission of material evidence, no reasonable view possible except guilt. (Paras 12, 13)

(D) Evidence - Cross-examination suggestion admitting child crushed under rear tyres binds accused; corroborates eyewitness and post-mortem. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
Vehicle driver reversed tipper at construction site, crushing child playing nearby under rear wheels causing instantaneous death due to head injuries. Prosecution alleged negligence; mechanical inspection found no defects. Driver held light motor vehicle license. Trial court acquitted on all counts; state appealed.

Findings of Court:
Accused convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC; acquitted under Section 181 MV Act.

Issues: Whether negligence proved for reversing without safety check; adequacy of light motor vehicle license; perversity in trial court acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Driver breached duty under Rule 31 to ensure no danger before reversing, proved by unchallenged evidence of crushing, post-mortem, and defence suggestions; trial court perversely overlooked evidence and rule; light motor vehicle license covers vehicle per Supreme Court interpretation.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; trial court judgment set aside in part; conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC; hearing on sentence fixed.

Table of Content
1. accident from tipper reversing over playing child. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial summoned accused; witnesses examined; denial recorded. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. trial court acquitted for unproved negligence. (Para 6)
4. prosecution asserts negligence by unsafe reversing. (Para 7 , 9)
5. defence requires proof beyond accident occurrence. (Para 10)
6. acquittal reversed only if perverse or ignores evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
7. accused proven driver by testimony and admission. (Para 15 , 16)
8. witness confirms child crushed under rear tyre. (Para 17 , 18)
9. cross-suggestion admits tyre crushing; binds accused. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
10. post-mortem proves crushing caused death. (Para 22)
11. no proof child abruptly entered path. (Para 23)
12. rule 31 mandates safety check before reversing. (Para 24 , 25)
13. unsafe reversing causing death is 304-a ipc. (Para 26)
14. lmv licence covers tippers under 7500kg. (Para 27 , 28)
15. partly allow appeal; convict 279, 304-a. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.02.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (M.V.Act). (The 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 filed a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Section 181 of M.V. Act. It was asserted that informant Shiv Kumar (PW-2) and his wife Shanti Devi were constructing a water tank on 03.01.20211. Their children were playing near the construction site. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-38-6218 arrived on the construction site at about 12:10 p.m. with the sand. The accused Mohan Singh was driving the tipper. He reversed the tipper. He could not control the tipper and crushed Chandni, the informant’s daughter, under the rear wheels. Chandni succumbed to her injuries on the spot. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused while reversing the vehicle. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PA) was recorded in the daily diary. ASI Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5) went to the spot for its verification. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW-2/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-5/A) was registered. The photographs of the spot (Ext.P-1 to Ext. P-9) were taken. ASI Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5) conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared reports (Ext.PW-5/C and Ext.PW-5/D). The post-mortem examination of Chandni was conducted, and a report (Ext. PC) was issued stating that death was caused by head injuries leading to hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock. ASI Kuldeep Kumar (PW-5) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext. PW5/E). He seized the vehicle along with documents vide memo (Ext. PB). The mechanical examination of the vehicle was conducted by HC Chaman Lal (PW-3), who found that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle, which could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW-3/A). The accused had a license authorising him to drive a light motor vehicle, and he was driving a tipper. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the 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 304-A of the IPC and Section 181 of M.V. Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecut