Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Vipan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No.377 of 2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suneet Goel, Aman Hansretta
For the Respondents: Lokender Kutlehria

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate; it does not allow for re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity. Evidence not challenged in cross-examination is deemed admitted. Sentencing for default of fine must comply with the proportional limits prescribed by the governing procedural code.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 338 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 181 and 184 - Rash and negligent driving - Sentencing policy - Revisional jurisdiction - Power of High Court - The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited and cannot be exercised in a routine manner; it is meant to set right a patent defect, error of jurisdiction, or illegal exercise of discretion rather than to re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court. (Paras 10-15)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 146 - Duty of cross-examination - Evidence of witnesses not challenged in cross-examination cannot be impeached during arguments - A party is obligated to put its version to the witness during examination-in-chief to test veracity and allow an opportunity for explanation; failure to do so implies the account is accepted. (Paras 21-27)

(C) Sentencing - Powers under Section 30 of Cr.P.C. - Imposition of default sentence - The default imprisonment for non-payment of fine cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment the magistrate is competent to inflict. (Para 36)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against a trial court judgment convicting the accused for rash and negligent driving resulting in injuries. The accused contended that the identity of the driver was wrongly established and sought to discredit the prosecution witnesses who had identified him. The lower courts upheld the conviction based on the site plan showing the vehicle was on the wrong side of the road and identification by witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the accused did not effectively challenge the testimony of the eyewitnesses during cross-examination. Further, the site plan confirmed the vehicle was on the wrong side of the road, establishing negligence. However, the trial court exceeded its powers by imposing a default sentence for non-payment of fine that exceeded the limits prescribed under the procedural law.

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a revision petition, and whether the sentence imposed by the trial court complies with statutory limits under the procedural code.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence absent perversity. Evidence not challenged in cross-examination is deemed accepted. The sentence for default of payment of fine must adhere strictly to the proportional limits set by the governing procedural statute.

Result: Revision partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence modified.

The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, Circuit Court Barsar, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 15.02.2012 and order of sentence dated 23.02.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barsar District Hamirpur, 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.)

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, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 181 & 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). It was asserted that Kishori Lal (PW-1) and his son Umesh Kumar (PW-11), the informant, were riding the scooter bearing registration No. HP55-4517 on 14.10.2009. When they reached Hareta bazaar at about 4:30 p.m., at some distance from the rest house, a vehicle came from the opposite side at a high speed. The informant took the scooter towards the unmetalled portion of the road. However, the vehicle hit the scooter on the wrong side of the road at high speed. The scooter fell. The informant and his father sustained multiple injuries. The driver of the vehicle revealed his name as Suresh Kumar, and the registration number of the vehicle as HP-55-2136. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The injured were taken to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. The police recorded an entry (Ext.PW-7/A) in the daily diary and sent HC Baldev Raj (PW-6) to the spot for verification. HC Baldev Raj (PW-8) recorded the informant’s statement (Ext.PW-8/A) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW-10/A) was registered. HC Baldev Raj filed an application (Ext.PW-7/B) for conducting the medical examination of the injured. Dr Sanjay Ranaut (PW-9) examined Krishan Lal and found that he had sustained simple injuries, which could have been caused within six hours of the examination by a blunt weapon. He issued the MLC (Ext.PW-9/C). He also examined Umesh Kumar and found that he had sustained multiple injuries, which could have been caused within six hours of examination by means of a blunt weapon. He referred the injured to the Orthopaedic Surgeon and issued the MLC (Ext.PW-9/B). X-rays of the injured were taken, which were examined by Dr Sanjeet Sharma (PW-6), who found that there was a fracture of the right hip joint. He issued the report (Ext.PW-6/A). Dr Sanjay Ranaut (PW-9) issued the final opinion stating that the nature of the injury was grievous. HC Baldev Raj (PW-8) seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP67-2136 and the scooter bearing registration No. HP55-4517 along with the documents vide memo (Ext.PW-8/C and Ext.PW-7/A). Ramesh Chand (PW-3) examined the vehicles and found that there were no mechanical defects in them, which could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext. PW-3/A and Ext.PW-3/B). 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.

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 338 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. Kishori Lal (PW-1) and Umesh Kumar (PW-11) were injured in the accident. Shambu Dutt (PW-2) is the owner of the vehicle, but he did not support the prosecution's case. Ramesh Chand (PW-3) examined the vehicles. Suresh Kumar (PW-4) claimed that he was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident. Sanjay Kumar (P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JVipan Kumar – AppellantVersusState Of Himachal Pradesh – RespondentCr. Revision No.377 of 2014

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Vipan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Cr. Revision No.377 of 2014