2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Rajender Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 26 of 2016

Revisional courts cannot reappreciate evidence absent perversity. Driving on the wrong side or unsafe overtaking constitutes criminal negligence. The victim's lack of a driver's license does not mitigate the accused's criminal liability, and offenders convicted of rash and negligent driving are not entitled to the benefit of probation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, and 338 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 313, 397, and 401 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Rash and negligent driving - Conviction based on concurrent findings - Revisional jurisdiction limited to correcting patent defects or errors of law/jurisdiction - It is impermissible for High Court to reappreciate evidence in absence of perversity. (Paras 13-17)

(B) Evidence of injured witness - Testimony of injured witness has greater evidentiary value - The presence of an injured witness at the scene cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions - Discrepancies due to memory loss do not discredit the witness. (Paras 26, 28)

(C) Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - Rules 2 and 6 - Duty of driver to drive on the left side - Overtaking without caution or signal when vehicle approaches from opposite side is negligence - Absence of driving license by victim does not contribute to accident or constitute contributory negligence in criminal law. (Paras 19, 21, 38, 42)

(D) Sentencing - Probation of Offenders Act - Benefit of probation cannot be granted to persons convicted of rash and negligent driving resulting in injury or death - Deterrence is a prime consideration in sentencing for road accidents. (Paras 45-48)

Facts of the case:
The accused was driving a passenger vehicle that collided with a motorcycle while overtaking another vehicle on a narrow road, causing simple and grievous injuries to the motorcycle rider and the pillion rider. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, which was upheld in appeal. The accused revised the conviction, arguing the victim was a unlicensed minor, and that the prosecution failed to examine all witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the accused violated road regulations by driving on the wrong side and attempting an unsafe overtake. Contributory negligence regarding the victim’s lack of a driving license is not applicable to criminal liability. The testimonies of the injured witnesses were deemed credible and sufficient for conviction, and the non-examination of additional witnesses does not warrant an adverse inference.

Issues: Whether the lack of a valid driving license by the victim constitutes negligence, whether the court should have granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the first-time offender, and whether the revisional court should reappreciate evidence when concurrent findings exist.

Ratio Decidendi: Absence of a driving license does not per se constitute rashness or negligence and does not absolve the accused of criminal liability for driving on the wrong side of the road. Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting legal errors and does not permit re-analysis of evidence in the absence of perversity. Probation benefits are denied for road accidents due to the need for deterrence.

Result: Revision dismissed.