Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Kamal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 313 of 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepak Kaushal, Aditya Chauhan
For the Respondents: Jitender Sharma

In revisional jurisdiction, courts shall not re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings unless they are perverse. Omissions in statements amount to contradictions only if they relate to material particulars and are proven via proper confrontation under Section 145/162 of the CrPC/Evidence Act. Deterrent sentencing is mandatory for negligent, intoxicated driving.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 279 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 181, 185 and 192A - Rash and negligent driving - Offence of driving under influence of alcohol - Driving without valid licence and route permit - Conviction and sentence - Legality of - The revisional court is not an appellate court and its jurisdiction is restricted to rectifying patent defects, errors of jurisdiction, or errors of law. Interference is not warranted unless findings are perverse or unreasonable. (Paras 14-18)

(B) Evidence Act - Section 145 - Cross-examination regarding previous statements - Procedure for confronting witnesses - Omissions and contradictions - Minor discrepancies in statements recorded after a significant lapse of time do not justify rejection of testimony unless they relate to core facts of the occurrence. A witness cannot be discredited through previous statements without specifically drawing their attention to those portions to provide an opportunity for explanation. (Paras 24-36, 41)

(C) Sentencing - Deterrence in road accidents - Application of Probation of Offenders Act - Offences involving rash/negligent driving and driving under influence of alcohol warrant deterrent sentences rather than lenient treatment. (Paras 61-64)

Facts of the case:
A driver was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving, driving under the influence of alcohol, and operating a commercial vehicle without a valid driving licence or route permit after an accident. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed imprisonment and fines, which were upheld by the appellate court. The accused challenged the conviction in revision, claiming witnesses were unreliable and the occurrence version was contradictory.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the accused driving on the wrong side of the road was the proximate cause of the accident. Medical evidence confirmed the blood alcohol concentration was significantly higher than the legal limit, and the absence of a licence and permit was established. The court further held that minor discrepancies in witness testimony caused by time lapse do not shake the core of the prosecution case.

Issues: Whether the lower courts erred in convicting the accused based on allegedly contradictory witness testimonies, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive warranting the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court shall not re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or lack legal basis. Minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case. Given the alarming rise in road accidents, especially involving drunk driving, a deterrent sentence is necessary for public safety.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges and factual background of the motor vehicle accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. summary of trial/appellate findings and grounds for criminal revision. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. limited scope of high court's revisional jurisdiction in concurrent findings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. evidentiary assessment, witness credibility, and procedure for contradictions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
5. negligence and violations under the motor vehicles act and ipc. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
6. deterrence in sentencing and denial of probation for road offences. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
7. final order dismissing the revision petition. (Para 66 , 67 , 68)

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District, at Nahan (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, 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 appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 181 , 185 and 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act).

3. It was asserted that Virender Singh (PW7) was driving the truck bearing registration No. HP-17B-8238 on 21.09.2011 from Kala Amb to Dehradun. He reached near Katasan at about 10:20 PM. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-71-1075 came from Paonta Sahib at a high speed and hit the rear tyre of the informant’s truck. The rear tyres were damaged due to the impact. Som Chand (PW6) and Anil Kumar (PW8) were also travelling in the informant’s truck. No person sustained any injury in the accident. Accused Kamal was driving the tipper bearing registration HP-71-1075, and the accident occurred because of the high speed of the tipper and the negligence of the accused. The tipper turned turtle after the accident, and the sand loaded in the tipper was spilled on the road. The matter was reported to the police, and entry (Ext.PW9/A) was recorded in the Police Station. HC Deep Chand (PW9) and Constable Chaman Lal were directed to visit the spot to verify the correctness of the entry. HC Deep Chand (PW9) visited the spot and recorded Virender Singh’s statement (Ext.PW7/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW5/A) was registered. HC Deep Chand (PW9) investigated the matter. He found that the accused was heavily intoxicated. HC Deep Chand (PW9) filed an application (Ext.PW9/B) for conducting the medical examination of the accused and obtaining his blood sample. Dr. Pankaj Gaur conducted the medical examination of the accused and found that he was unable to walk in a straight line, and he was having slurring of speech and a staggering gait. He obtained the blood sample of the accused and handed it over to the Police official accompanying the accused. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW10/A). HC Deep Chand (PW9) prepared the site plan (Ext.PW9/C). He took the photographs (Ext.P1 to Ext.P7) with the help of his mobile phone. He seized the vehicle along with the documents vide Memos (Ext. PW4/A and Ext.PW1/A). HHC Suresh Chand (PW2) examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW2/B). The accused could not produce his Driving Licence or the route permit on demand. The blood sample was sent to the SFSL, and as per the report of analysis, the quantity of alcohol in the blood of the accu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JKamal – AppellantVersusState of H.P. – RespondentCr. Revision No. 313 of 2016

Cases Referred (43)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Kamal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 313 of 2016