Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Dalel Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 43 of 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Surya Chauhan
For the Respondents: Ajit Sharma

Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors or perversity. In cases of rash and negligent driving involving fatalities, the doctrine of necessity under Section 81 IPC is inapplicable where the accused causes greater harm to others while attempting to avoid a perceived risk.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 304A and 337 - Rash and negligent driving - Two persons died and one injured in road accident - Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court - Revisional jurisdiction is extremely narrow and not to be equated with appellate power - Interference only in case of patent defect, error of jurisdiction, or perversity - (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15)

(B) General Exceptions - Section 81 of IPC - Doctrine of necessity - Plea of saving another life to justify causing death of two persons - Act causing harm must be done in good faith without criminal intent - Accused must demonstrate danger was so imminent and nature of act was justified to avoid greater harm - (Paras 23, 24)

(C) Sentencing - Probation of Offenders Act - Road accident cases - Deterrence is a primary consideration - Benefit of probation usually not applicable for offences under Section 304A IPC due to galloping trend of road accidents - (Paras 35, 36, 37)

Facts of the case:
A motor vehicle accident occurred when a heavy vehicle swerved on to the wrong side of the road, hitting a cyclist and subsequently colliding with a motorcycle, resulting in two fatalities and one injury. The defense argued that the driver acted to avoid a collision with the cyclist, invoking the principle of necessity under Section 81 of the IPC.

Findings of Court:
The Courts below concurrently held that the driver was driving at high speed and negligently veered into the opposite lane. The plea of necessity was rejected as the driver's act of swerving to a wrong lane resulted in greater harm (death of two people) rather than avoiding it. The evidence of skid marks confirmed the high speed and loss of control.

Issues: Whether the appellate court's concurrent conviction was perverse and whether the defense of necessity under Section 81 of the IPC was applicable to excuse the driver's actions in causing the fatal accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be treated as a second appeal. Absent perversity or gross error, concurrent findings of fact remain undisturbed. Further, the doctrine of necessity under Section 81 IPC does not permit the infliction of a greater, avoidable harm (death of two persons) while attempting to mitigate a lesser one.

Result: Revision dismissed.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.09.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una (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.)

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Santosh Kumar (PW10), made a complaint (Ext.PW1/A) to the police, asserting that his brother Surinder Kumar and Rohit (since deceased) were going towards Bhatoli Chowk on the motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-16B-8543 on 15.03.2007 at about 2:15 PM. A bus bearing registration No. HP-20-4957, Tikra Coach, came from Una at a high speed and hit Hussan Lal (PW8), who was cycling. The driver turned the bus towards the other side and hit the motorcycle. Surinder Kumar and Rohit died on the spot. Devender Kumar (accused) was driving the bus at the time of the accident, and the accident occurred due to the high speed of the bus and the negligence of the accused. The matter was reported to the police, and entry (Ext.PW7/A) was recorded in the Police Station. SI Bhumi Cham (PW14), HHC Govind Ram and Constable Manjeet Singh were sent to Bhatoli Chowk for verification. Santosh Kumar made a statement (Ext.PW1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW2/A) was recorded. Bhumi Chand (PW14) investigated the matter. Photographs (Ext.P1 to Ext.P11) whose negatives are Ext.P12 to Ext. 22 were taken. SI Bhumi Chand (PW14) prepared the site plan (Ext.PW14/A). He conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared the report (Ext.PW14/B). He filed an application (Ext.PW14/C) for the post-mortem examination of the dead bodies. The post-mortem report of Rohit and Surinder Kumar (Ext.PY and Ext.PZ) were obtained. Dr Komal Malik (PW15) examined Hussan Lal and issued a prescription slip (Ext.PW15/B). SI Bhumi Chand (PW14) found that the motorcycle was pressed under the front tyres of the bus. He removed the motorcycle and seized it along with the documents vide memo (Ext.PW1/B). He seized the bus along with the documents vide memo (Ext.PW1/A). SI Bhumi Chand (PW14) also seized the cycle vide memo (Ext.PW1/C). Rajender Kumar produced the driving licence of Surinder, which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW11/B). HHC Sarup Lal (PW5) examined the bus, the cycle and the motorcycle. He found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued his reports (Ext.PW5/A to (Ext.PW5/C). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

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, 337 and 304A of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove its case. Mohinder Singh (PW1), Mani Thakur (PW6), and Vivek Kumar (PW12) are eyewitnesses. HHC Joginder Ram (PW2) carried the statement to the Police Station. Manmohan Singh (PW3) took the photographs. Constable Manjeet Singh (PW4), HC Rajinder Kumar (PW9), Jaswant Singh (PW11) and Rajinder Kumar (PW16) witnessed the recoveries. HHC Sarup Lal (PW5) mechanically examined the vehicles. Constable Kamal Krishan (PW7) proved the entry in the daily diary. Hussan Lal (PW8) did not support the prosecution's case. Santosh Kumar (PW10) is the informant. Harmesh Kumar (PW13) is the conductor of the bus, but he did not support t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JDalel Singh – AppellantVersusState of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCr. Revision No. 43 of 2015

Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors or perversity. In cases of rash and negligent driving involving fatalities, the doctrine of necessity under Section 81 IPC is inapplicable where the accused causes greater harm to others while attempting to avoid a perceived risk.

Cases Referred (13)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Dalel Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 43 of 2015