Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Harminder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 366 of 2014
Decided On :16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s Y.K. Thakur, Bhanu Verma and Ritik Prashar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; lower courts erred ignoring mechanical reports' inconsistencies on vehicle damage and witness speed contradiction, creating reasonable doubt on rash driving negligence, warranting acquittal.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Section 279 - Rash or negligent driving - Tractor allegedly driven on wrong side at high speed hitting car on blind curve - Trial Court convicted based on informant statement, site plan showing skid marks, photos - Appellate Court upheld using admission in Section 313 statement for corroboration - Mechanical reports showed damage to left side of car and right side of tractor, inconsistent with wrong side driving version - Informant cross-examination revealed speed 25-30 kmph not high, brakes applied but not holding, towing another tractor downhill - Site plan and photos showed vehicles shifted post-accident - No other evidence; reasonable doubt on negligence - Accused acquitted. (Paras 6,7,19-23)

(B) Cr.P.C. - Sections 397, 401, 482 - Revisional jurisdiction supervisory, not appellate - Limited to patent defects, jurisdictional errors, perversity, gross miscarriage of justice - Not to reappreciate evidence, reanalyse facts, or upset concurrent findings absent glaring perversity or ignored material evidence - Lower courts erred by not considering significance of mechanical reports creating doubt. (Paras 13-18)

Facts of the case:
Informant travelling in car hit by oncoming tractor on wrong side at high speed on blind curve; steering damaged; FIR for rash driving; investigation with site plan, photos, mechanical inspection no defects; prosecution witnesses supported version; accused denied; convicted by trial court, upheld in appeal; revision challenging evidence appreciation.

Findings of Court:
Mechanical reports and inconsistencies falsify prosecution version; doubt benefits accused; revision allowed, lower judgments set aside, acquitted; bail bonds directed.

Issues: Whether lower courts perversely appreciated evidence ignoring mechanical reports and cross-examination creating doubt on negligence; scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction with concurrent findings.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional court interferes where lower courts ignore material evidence like mechanical reports showing vehicle damage inconsistent with alleged wrong side driving, and witness inconsistencies on speed, leading to reasonable doubt on negligence; revisional power not for reappreciation unless perversity.

Result: Revision allowed.

Table of Content
1. tractor negligently hit car on wrong side. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial court convicted for rash negligent driving. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. appellate court upheld negligence via site plan. (Para 7)
4. evidence misappreciated; mechanical report exonerates. (Para 8 , 10)
5. revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity correction. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. site plan proves wrong-side driving negligence. (Para 11)
7. damage reports contradict wrong-side driving claim. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
8. ignored evidence creates reasonable doubt for acquittal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
9. revision allowed; accused acquitted under section 279. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilsapur) (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2013 and order of sentence dated 07.09.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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 leading to the present revision are that the police filed a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Rajesh Vaidya (PW-3), was going from Mandi to Chandigarh on 21.03.2004 in a car bearing registration No. CH-03D-0987. A tractor without bearing any registration number came from the opposite side at a high speed towards the wrong side of the road at Baner Mor at 12:45 pm and hit the left side of the car. The steering rod was damaged by the accident. Accused Harminder Singh was driving the tractor at the time of the accident. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. The matter was reported to the police. An entry No.14 (Ext.PW-5/A) was recorded in the Police Chowki. ASI Man Chand (PW-5) went to the spot for the verification of the information. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW3/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW-4/A) was registered. ASI Man Chand investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan Ext.PW-5/B. He seized the tractor vide memo (Ext.PW-1/A) and car vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). ASI Trilok Chand (PW-1) took the photographs (Ext.PB to Ext.PC), whose negatives are Ext.PD and Ext. PF. HHC Dev Raj (PW-2) mechanically examined the vehicles. He did not find any defect in the vehicles that could have led to the accident. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completing the investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted 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 an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined five witnesses to prove its case. ASI Trilok Chand (PW-1) took photographs of the vehicles and witnessed the recoveries. HHC Dev Raj (PW-2) mechanically examined the vehicles. Rajesh Vaidya (PW-3) is the informant. Inspector Sita Ram (PW-4) signed the F.I.R. ASI Man Chand (PW-5) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He claimed that he was innocent and had not committed any offence. He stated that he wanted to lead evidence, but did not produce any evidence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accident had occurred on a blind curve. The tractor was being driven towards the wrong side. The spot map (Ext.PW-5/B) showed the skid marks to the extent of 15 feet. The accused was negligent because he drove the car towards