SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Joginder Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 2 of 2015
Decided On : 18-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 limited to patent errors or perversity; cannot reappraise evidence to upset concurrent findings of rash negligent driving causing deaths in overloaded defective vehicle.

Headnote:(A) Cr.P.C. - Section 397 - Revisional jurisdiction - Narrow scope - High Court not to exercise appellate powers or reappraise evidence - Interference only for patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, law or perversity in concurrent findings - Not where another view possible or findings based on evidence. (Paras 14-19)

(B) IPC - Sections 279, 304-A - MV Act - Sections 181, 180, 196 - Rash and negligent driving causing death - Driving overloaded not roadworthy vehicle at high speed without valid licence, hitting bridge parapet - Owner permitting unlicensed driver with expired insurance - Negligence established by eyewitnesses, site plan, photographs, mechanical report - Deterrent sentence required considering road accident fatalities. (Paras 20-46)

(C) Evidence - Non-examination of witnesses - No adverse inference if examined witnesses reliable, corroborated by circumstances like site plan, photos - Quality over quantity. (Paras 33-37)

Facts of the case:
Overloaded bus with passengers on roof and hanging from door hit bridge parapet due to high speed and loss of control causing four deaths and injuries. Driver admitted driving but claimed truck fault; no licence produced. Mechanical inspection showed vehicle not roadworthy, doors defective. Trial court convicted driver under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and 181 MV Act, owner under 180, 196 MV Act; sentences upheld in appeal; revision challenging evidence appreciation, non-examination of passengers.

Findings of Court:
Negligence proved; bus damaged on left side despite space on right; defence explanation rejected; concurrent findings not perverse; sentence of two years RI under 304-A IPC adequate.

Issues: Scope of revisional interference with concurrent conviction; establishment of rash negligence despite non-examination of some passengers; adequacy of sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional court cannot reanalyse evidence absent perversity; negligence from driving overloaded defective vehicle rashly corroborated independently; non-examination of witnesses immaterial where others credible and circumstances support prosecution.

Result: Revision dismissed.

Table of Content
1. negligent high-speed overloaded bus driving caused deaths. (Para 1 , 2)
2. trial proceedings, witnesses, accused admissions recorded. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. lower courts convicted for rash negligence and mv violations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. petitioner challenges evidence, urges revision; state defends. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors, no reappreciation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. eyewitnesses, site plan, photos prove driver's negligence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. no adverse inference from reliable examined witnesses. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
8. accused explanation rejected; no licence, negligence proved. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
9. deterrent sentence required for rash driving deaths. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
10. revision dismissed, upholding concurrent findings. (Para 47 , 48)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.07.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2011 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, 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 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and Sections 181, 187, 196 and 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short “MV Act”). It was asserted that Hardev Singh (PW16) boarded a bus bearing registration No. HP-12- 4175 at Bagheri on 12.05.2006. The bus was overloaded. Some passengers were sitting on the roof of the bus, and some were hanging from the door. The accused was driving the bus at a high speed. He could not control the bus, and the bus hit the bridge at Kashmirpur. Three people died on the spot. The conductor of the bus, namely Nirmal Singh @ Kaku, and one of the passengers, Pyari Devi, sustained injuries. They were taken to the hospital. Nirmal Singh succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ex. PW13/A) was recorded. ASI Prithvi Singh (PW13) went to the hospital for verification. He went to the spot and took the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P9). HC Hardev Singh recorded the informant’s statement (Ex. PW9/A), which was sent to the police station, where FIR (Ex. PW9/C) was registered. ASI Prithvi Singh (PW13) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ex. PW13/B). He seized the bus bearing registration No. HP-12- 4175 vide memo (Ex. PW13/C). Rajinder Singh (PW11) mechanically examined the vehicle and found that there was no defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex. PW11/A). Dr S.S. Bawa (PW7) conducted the postmortem examination of Gurnam Singh and found that he had died due to severe traumatic injury on the skull, chest and abdomen, leading to shock and death. He also conducted the postmortem examination of Sunil Kumar and found that he had died due to severe traumatic injury to the skull and brain, leading to failure of higher functions, shock and death. He also conducted the postmortem examination of Nirmal Singh and found that he had died due to multiple fractures leading to hypovolemic shock and cardiorespiratory arrest. He issued the reports (Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B). Dr Sukhwinder Singh (PW8) examined Nirmal Singh and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. He made efforts to resuscitate him but failed. He issued the report (Ex. PW8/B). Dr S.S. Bawa (PW7) conducted the postmortem examination of Chander Mohan and found that the cause of death was due to severe traumatic injury o





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top