Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Sanjeev Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 89 of 2013
Decided On : 16-12-2025.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Ajay Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Revisional jurisdiction narrowly limited against concurrent convictions; negligence proved by high-speed wrong-side driving causing vehicle to hit pedestrians, parapet and overturn, absent mechanical defect.

Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C. - Sections 397, 401 - Revisional jurisdiction - Extremely narrow - Confined to patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law; not appellate-like reappreciation of evidence or upsetting concurrent factual findings absent perversity, gross error or ignored material. (Paras 13-18)

(B) IPC - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A - Rash/negligent driving - Established where vehicle at high speed downhill on curve veered to right/wrong side breaching road rules, hit pedestrians on roadside causing fall into khad, struck parapet (tyre marks noted in site plan), turned turtle; corroborated by eyewitnesses, photographs, no mechanical defect. Mere high speed insufficient alone, but combined with wrong-side manoeuvre proves negligence. (Paras 19-39)

(C) Evidence Act - Section 155(3) - Witness impeachment - Court witness confronted with prior inconsistent statement discredits testimony wholly if thoroughly shaken; partial contradiction shakes credibility to extent only. (Paras 24-27)

(D) IPC - Section 304-A - Sentence - Three months simple imprisonment and fine Rs.1000 adequate despite young life lost; deterrence stressed but no enhancement absent appeal. (Paras 44-47)

Facts of the case:
Vehicle hit two pedestrians returning home on roadside near bridge, causing one death from head injury, grievous/simple injuries to others including vehicle occupants; driver convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC by trial court, upheld in appeal; revision challenges driver's identity, negligence proof, evidence appreciation.

Findings of Court:
Driver's identity proved by vehicle occupant and injured pedestrian eyewitnesses; negligence from loss of control, wrong-side driving, high speed; no mechanical fault; concurrent convictions proper; revision dismissed.

Issues: Driver's identity sans test identification parade; negligence proof beyond mere high speed; revisional interference with concurrent findings; sentence adequacy.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional court desists from reanalysing evidence absent perversity; negligence inferred from vehicle path (right-side veer, hit pedestrians/parapet, overturn), site evidence, credible eyewitnesses with observation opportunity; alternative injury hypotheses rebutted by consistent testimonies.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. rash negligent driving caused injuries and death (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. dispute over driver identity and negligence proof (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. occupants identify accused as negligent driver (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 28)
5. hostile witness impeached by inconsistencies (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
6. contradictions discredit witness entirely (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
7. eyewitness identification reliable post-trauma (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
8. no defect; site confirms vehicle loss control (Para 33 , 34)
9. wrong-side driving constitutes negligence (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
10. medical evidence supports accident causation (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
11. deterrent sentence required absent perversity (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
12. concurrent conviction findings upheld (Para 48 , 49 , 50)

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.12.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 27.2.2009 and order of sentence dated 28.2.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (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 before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant Seema Bala (PW1) and her friend Rashi alia Doli (since deceased) were returning to their homes on 5.4.2000. They reached Dehan Bridge at about 5.30 PM when a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. HP-11-0012 came from Maranda at a high speed and hit them. The accident occurred due to the high speed of the Jeep and the negligence of the driver. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. The police recorded an entry in the daily diary and sent ASI Mastan Singh (PW12) for verification. He submitted an application (Ex.PW12/A) to seek the Medical Officer’s opinion regarding the competence of the injured to make a statement. The Medical Officer certified that Seema was fit to make a statement. ASI Mastan Singh (PW12) recorded Seema’s statement (Ex.PW1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW11/A) was registered. Dr Nirdosh (PW2) medically examined Seema and found that she had sustained multiple injuries. He advised an X-ray. A fracture was detected after the X-ray. The nature of the injury was stated to be grievous. MLC (Ex.PW2/C) was issued. Baljeet Singh, Rakesh Kumar and Naveen Kumar had also sustained injuries in the accident. Dr Nirdosh also examined them and issued the reports (Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/E). ASI Surjeet further investigated the matter. He went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW11/C). The accused produced the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-11-0012 and the documents, which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/A). Rashi succumbed to her injuries on 6.4.2000. An inquest on the dead body was conducted, and a report (Ex.PW11/E) was prepared. An application (Ex.PW11/D) was filed for conducting her postmortem examination. Dr. G.C. Sood (PW4) conducted the postmortem examination of Rashi. He found that the cause of death was a head injury. He issued a postmortem report (Ex.PW4/A). Vikram (PW9) took the photographs of the spot (Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/E), whose negatives are Ex.PW9/F to Ex.PW9/I. Tilak Raj (PW14) mechanically examined the vehicle and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led t