Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Kushal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 256 of 2016
Decided On : 09-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Naveen K. Bhardwaj
For the Respondent: Prashant Sen

Revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent convictions under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 absent perversity; driving on wrong side of narrow curve without precautions constitutes negligence; probation benefit denied for deterrent effect in road accident cases. (32 words)

Headnote:(A) IPC Sections 279, 337 and 338 - Rash and negligent driving - Vehicle driven on wrong side of narrow curved road without sounding horn or applying brakes, failing to leave space for oncoming motorcyclists, resulting in collision causing simple hurt to rider and grievous hurt (fracture) to pillion rider - Mechanical inspections revealed no defects in vehicles - Eyewitnesses corroborated negligence; site plan and photographs showed no space for motorcyclists due to boulder - Minor contradictions and alternative injury hypotheses not fatal to prosecution case - Conviction and concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts upheld in revision. (Paras 6, 7, 23-33)

(B) CrPC Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction - Narrow scope; court not to reappreciate evidence or substitute views like appellate court unless patent defect, jurisdictional error, perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice - Concurrent factual findings not to be disturbed absent perversity. (Paras 13-18)

(C) Probation of Offenders Act - Benefit not extendable to convictions under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC - Deterrent sentence imperative due to alarming rise in road accidents; professional drivers must maintain constant vigilance. (Paras 34-40)

(D) Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - Rule 2 - Driver must keep vehicle close to left side, allowing opposite traffic to pass on right - Driving on right side on narrow road constitutes negligence per se. (Paras 28-30)

Facts of the case:
Tempo collided with motorcycle carrying rider, pillion rider and child on narrow curved road; motorcyclist stopped upon seeing tempo but driver encroached right side hitting motorcycle; injuries caused by protruding angle iron on tempo side; challan filed, conviction by trial court upheld on appeal, challenged in revision alleging contradictions, motorcyclist negligence due to overloading, and seeking probation.

Findings of Court:
Negligence of tempo driver proved beyond doubt; accused rightly convicted and sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment under Section 338, 3 months each under Sections 279 and 337; sentences adequate, no interference warranted.

Issues: Whether rashness/negligence proved despite alleged contradictions and absence of protruding angle iron; scope of revisional interference with concurrent findings; entitlement to probation benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Breach of traffic rules by driving on wrong side on narrow curve without precautions establishes rash and negligent driving; revisional court defers to trial/appellate appreciation unless perverse; probation inapplicable to motor accident offences to ensure deterrence amid rising accidents.

Result: Revision dismissed; conviction and sentences upheld.

Table of Content
1. tempo negligently hit motorcycle on narrow curve. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution proved case; accused denied guilt. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. lower courts upheld conviction for negligence. (Para 6 , 7)
4. contradictions alleged; motorcyclist negligent claimed. (Para 8 , 10)
5. accused failed to provide space on curve. (Para 11)
6. revisional court limits to patent errors, no reappreciation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
7. witnesses confirmed accused drove the tempo. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
8. tempo on wrong side caused collision. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. driving on right side constitutes negligence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
10. grievous injuries proved by medical evidence. (Para 32 , 33)
11. no probation for rash driving offences. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
12. sentences adequate; revision petition dismissed. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.06.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharmshala, Circuit Court at Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, 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 petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was stated that the informant/victim, Vijay Kumar (PW3), was heading towards Majhera Bazar on 22.06.2010. He reached 150 meters before Majhera Bazaar at about 9:15 am when he saw that a tempo coming from Majhera Bazaar hit a motorcycle coming from Kachera. Atal Dev (PW1) was driving the motorcycle. His wife, Chandresh Kumari (PW4) and a child were riding the motorcycle as pillion riders. Vijay Kumar (PW3) picked them up and sent them to the hospital with Ashwani Kumar (PW5). The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tempo because the road was narrow and there was a curve. The tempo driver neither sounded the horn nor applied the brakes. He did not leave any space for the motorcyclists to cross. The matter was reported to the police, and entry (Ext.PW9/A) was recorded in the Police Station. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW11) was sent for verification with Constable Surjit Kumar (PW7), HHC Uttam Chand (PW12), and Suresh Kumar. He recorded the statement of the informant Vijay Kumar (Ext.PW3/A) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW9/C) was registered. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW11) investigated the matter. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW3/A) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW9/B) was registered. HC Sanjeev Kumar (PW11) took the photographs of the spot (Ext. PW11/X-1 to PW11/X4). He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW11/A). He seized the motorcycle and truck lying on the spot vide memo (Ext.PW7/A). Kushal Kumar produced the documents of the tempo, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW7/B). Dr Sanjeev Sharma (PW10) examined Chandresh Kumari (PW4) and found fractures of the left inferior pubic ramus and left greater trochanter. He issued the treatment summary (Ext.PW10/A). HC Rajinder Kumar (PW6) mechanically examined the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP56-2853 and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW6/A). Kanwar Singh (PW8) mechanically examined the tempo bearing registration No. HP68-1767 and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW8/A). Documents of the motorcycle were seized vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after t