Roop Lal vs State of H.P. - 2026 Supreme(HP) 681

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 438) - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope - Revisional court does not act as appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity, gross error, or miscarriage of justice - Interference only when finding is perverse, based on irrelevant material, or judicial discretion exercised arbitrarily. (Para 13, citing Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 336, 337, 338 - Conviction for rash driving and causing hurt/grievous hurt - Identity of vehicle - Burden on prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt - Discrepancy in name of bus (Sunaina vs Himgiri) - Failure to prove involvement of alleged bus - Defence witnesses showing bus left earlier - Reasonable doubt - Acquittal justified. (Paras 15-24)

(C) Evidence - Witness testimony - Informant and victim not aware of registration number initially - No photographs of bus showing name - Defence evidence of entry tax receipts and timetable - Independent witnesses - Credibility - Courts below ignored material discrepancies - Miscarriage of justice. (Paras 15-24)

Facts of the case:
On 13.07.2009 at about 07:30 a.m., informant Asha Devi, her husband Brij Lal and children were at Ghumarwin bus stand. They boarded a bus allegedly bearing registration No. HP-69-0752. Brij Lal climbed onto roof to keep luggage; conductor signalled driver to start, causing Brij Lal to fall and sustain grievous injuries. The bus left. Police registered FIR. Trial court convicted driver Joginder Singh under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and conductor Roop Lal under Sections 336, 337, 338 IPC. Appellate court acquitted driver but upheld conductor's conviction. Roop Lal filed revision.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that prosecution witnesses stated the bus was a Sunaina bus, but the registration certificate and route permit showed the bus was Himgiri. No photographs were taken to show Sunaina written on it. Defence witnesses (DW1 - entry tax clerk, DW2 - HRTC Adda incharge) deposed that the bus arrived at 07:00 a.m. and left at 07:05 a.m., making it impossible to be involved at 07:30 a.m. Informant and victim were initially unaware of registration number and names of driver/conductor. The bus was not stopped after the accident, which was unlikely if it was the offending vehicle. Hence there was reasonable doubt about identity of the bus. The lower courts failed to consider this material discrepancy, leading to miscarriage of justice. The revision was allowed, conviction set aside, and accused acquitted.

Issues: 1. Whether the revisional court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact? 2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the bus bearing registration No. HP-69-0752 was involved in the accident?

Ratio Decidendi: The revisional court can interfere when lower courts have ignored material discrepancies and perversity leading to miscarriage of justice. The identity of the vehicle is a crucial fact that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Discrepancy between the description of the bus (Sunaina) and official records (Himgiri), coupled with defence evidence of timing and absence of contemporaneous identification, creates reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal. Result : Revision allowed. Judgments of courts below set aside. Accused Roop Lal acquitted of offences under Sections 336, 337, 338 IPC. Fine, if deposited, to be refunded. Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Criminal revision against conviction for offences under sections 336, 337, 338 ipc for causing hurt by negligence in a bus accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. Accused contended misidentification of bus and contradictory witness statements; state argued concurrent findings should be upheld. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 )

3. Revision allowed, conviction set aside, accused acquitted of all charges. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )

4. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 397 crpc?

The revisional court does not act as an appellate court; it can only determine correctness, legality, propriety of findings and should not reappreciate evidence unless there is perversity. (Para 13 , 14 )

5. Can a conviction be based on uncorroborated and contradictory testimony regarding the identity of the offending vehicle?

No. If there is reasonable doubt about the identity of the vehicle, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The prosecution must prove identity with satisfactory evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

6. When is an accused entitled to benefit of doubt in a criminal case?

When there is reasonable doubt regarding a crucial element of the offence, such as the identity of the vehicle involved, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. (Para 24 , 25 )

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The 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 appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused 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 asserted that the informant Asha Devi (PW1), her husband Brij Lal (PW2) and her children were going to Shimla on 13.07.2009 at about 07.30 a.m. A bus bearing registration No. HP-69-0752 came to the bus stand. The informant and her daughters boarded the bus. Brij Lal (PW2) climbed onto the bus roof to place the luggage. The conductor whistled the driver to start the bus. The driver started the bus, and Brij Lal (PW2) fell. The passengers asked the driver and conductor to carry Brij Lal (PW2) to the hospital, but they refused and took the bus to Shimla. The injured was carried to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ext.PW9/A) was recorded in the daily diary. ASI Biri Singh (PW8) and Constable Raj Kumar were sent to the hospital for verification. ASI Biri Singh (PW8) recorded the informant's statement (Ext.PW1/A) as per his version and sent it to the police station where FIR (Ext.PW8/A) was registered. Dr Poonam (PW7) examined Brij Lal (PW2) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries. She advised an X-ray. Dr D. Bhangal (PW6) went through the X-ray and found a fracture of the fifth and sixth rib. A final opinion (Ext.PW7/A) was issued stating that the injuries were grievous and could have been caused in a Motor Vehicle accident. ASI Biri Singh (PW8) went to the spot where he prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/C) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-69-0752 along with documents vide memo (Ext.PW5/A). Kashmir Singh (PW3) mechanically examined the bus and did not find any defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW3/A). Rahul Chauhan (PW5), the owner of the bus, issued a certificate (Ext.PW5/D) stating that accused Joginder Singh was driving the bus and Roop Lal was a conductor of the bus. The challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of investigation.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, accused Joginder Singh was charged with a commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and accused Roop Lal was charged with a commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case. Asha Devi (PW1) is the informant. Brij Lal (PW2) is the victim. Kashmir Singh (PW3) mechanically examined the vehicle. Rikhi Ram (PW4) took the X-rays. Rahul Chauhan (PW5) is the owner of the bus, who issued a certificate stating that the accused were employed as driver and conductor of the bus. Dr D. Bhangal (PW6), radiologist, went through the X-rays and issued his report. Dr Poonam (PW7) medically examined the injured Brij Lal. ASI Biri Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. Roshan Lal (PW9) signed the FIR and prepared the challan.

5. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) admitted that Rahul (PW5) had issued a certificate stating that accused Joginder Singh was employed as a driver and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(HP) 681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Roop Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 163 of 2014
Decided On : 13-08-2026

Revisional court may interfere with concurrent findings if lower courts ignore material discrepancies causing miscarriage of justice; identity of vehicle must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancy in bus description creates reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 397 crpc?

5. Can a conviction be based on uncorroborated and contradictory testimony regarding the identity of the offending vehicle?

6. When is an accused entitled to benefit of doubt in a criminal case?

2026 Supreme(HP) 681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, J.Roop Lal - PetitionerVersusState of H.P. - RespondentCr. Revision No. 163 of 2014Decided On : 13-08-2026

Revisional court may interfere with concurrent findings if lower courts ignore material discrepancies causing miscarriage of justice; identity of vehicle must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancy in bus description creates reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 397 crpc?

5. Can a conviction be based on uncorroborated and contradictory testimony regarding the identity of the offending vehicle?

6. When is an accused entitled to benefit of doubt in a criminal case?

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Roop Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 163 of 2014
Decided On : 13-08-2026