2025 Supreme(HP) 1852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Yadav Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No.237 of 2015 
Decided On : 18-12-2025

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, sustaining rash driving death conviction; MV Act reconviction barred by final acquittal.

Headnote:(A) IPC Sections 279 & 304-A; Motor Vehicles Act Section 187 - Rash and negligent driving by reversing vehicle without ensuring no danger to persons, causing death of child pedestrian - Conviction and sentence upheld on concurrent findings identifying driver through eyewitness and owner testimonies, negligence proved despite mechanical inspection showing no defects and contradictory defences of vehicle rolling or child jumping; conviction under MV Act set aside as prior acquittal attained finality without challenge. Rule 31 of Road Regulations 1989 mandates driver ensure safety before reversing. (Paras 21, 26, 30, 35, 43)

(B) CrPC Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent defects, jurisdictional errors or law; no reappreciation of evidence or upsetting concurrent factual findings absent perversity, gross error or miscarriage of justice - "Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence... to reverse those findings." (Paras 15-20)

(C) Identification - Court identification reliable without test parade where daylight incident imprints assailant in witness memory during traumatic event; delayed identity dispute after initial non-challenge and after prolonged recall cross-examination doubted, especially post years lapse allowing influence. (Paras 23-24, 27-29, 31-32)

(D) Evidence - Suggestions in cross-examination incriminating accused bind him, admitting presence; defence witness as conductor failing to protest false implication earlier unreliable. (Paras 24-25, 30, 33) (E) Sentencing - Deterrent imprisonment required for rash driving causing death considering accident proliferation; one year simple imprisonment under 304-A IPC and three months under 279 IPC not excessive. (Paras 36-41)

Facts of the case:
Informant with wife and son returning from temple on specified date; son walking ahead struck by reversing jeep around 10:15 a.m., crushed under rear tyre; driver fled scene; postmortem confirmed multiple injuries causing shock and death; vehicle seized, no mechanical defects; trial court convicted under specified sections after prosecution evidence, upheld on appeal post additional evidence and remand; revision challenging identity, negligence absence and suppression.

Findings of Court:
Driver identity and negligence concurrent findings sustainable; MV Act conviction unsustainable due to final acquittal.

Issues: Whether driver's identity proved despite no test parade and defence witness; rash/negligence established in reversing without safety check amid contradictory defences; revisional interference warranted against concurrent holdings; propriety of MV Act reconviction post unappealed acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Absent perversity, revisional court upholds trial and appellate concurrent findings on identity via reliable initial testimonies and negligence via failure to check before reversing per regulations; delayed identity pleas and incriminating suggestions undermine defence; prior acquittal finality bars reconviction.

Result: Revision partly allowed; conviction and sentence under MV Act Section 187 set aside, remainder upheld.

Table of Content
1. rash reversing of jeep causes child's death. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial conviction, appeal leads to remand. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. lower courts affirm identity and negligence. (Para 8 , 9)
4. petitioner challenges identity and negligence proof. (Para 10 , 12)
5. prosecution defends concurrent factual findings. (Para 13)
6. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. identity proved by initial testimonies, suggestions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. negligence for not checking before reversing. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
9. deterrent sentence for rash driving deaths. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
10. revision partly allowed; mv conviction set aside. (Para 42 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District at Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 18.12.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahul Spiti, at Kullu, District Kullu, 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 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that the informant Swarup Chand Negi (PW-1), his wife Devendra Devi and son Amit Kumar (since deceased) were returning to their home from Sheetla Mata Temple on 04.5.2004. Amit Kumar was walking ahead. A jeep bearing registration No. HP-33A-0795 hit Amit Kumar at about 10:15 a.m. while reversing. The accused Yadav Singh was driving the jeep at the time of the accident, who ran away from the spot. The injured person was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. An intimation (Ext.PW-5/A) was given to the police, and the police recorded an entry (Ext.PW- 4/A) in the daily diary. SI Dorje Ram (PW-5) went to the Hospital for verification. He recorded the informant’s statement (Ext. PW-1/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-5/B) was registered. He conducted an inquest on the dead body and prepared a report (Ext.PW-5/D). The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted, and it was found that the cause of the death was multiple injuries leading to shock and death. Post Mortem report (Ext.PA) was issued. SI Dorje Ram (PW-5) went to the spot, and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-5/E). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-33A-0795 along with documents vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). Padam Singh (PW-6) conducted the mechanical examination of the vehicle and found no mechanical defect in it, which could have led to the accident. He issued a report (Ext. PB). SI Dorje Ram (PW-5) took the photographs of the spot (Ext.P1 to P3) whose negatives are Ext.P4 to P6. Statements of the prosecution’s witnesses were recorded as per their version. The challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

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 187 of MV Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Swarup Chand (PW-1) is the informant. Keshav Ram (PW-2) is an eyewitness. Iqbal Singh (PW-3) is the owner of the vehicle. Netar Singh (PW-4) proved the entry in the daily diary. Dorje Ram (PW-5) investigated the matter. Padam Singh mechanically examined the vehicle.

5. The accused, in his statement recorde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document