2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
SANJAY KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CR.R/300/2026

Revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence against concurrent findings unless there is perversity or jurisdictional error. Driving on the wrong side of the road constitutes negligence, and the Probation of Offenders Act is generally inapplicable to rash driving cases to ensure deterrence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313, 397 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Motor accident causing injuries - Driving on the wrong side of the road - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - Evidence of hostile witness - Qualification of an expert - Application of probation - The scope of interference in a criminal revision is extremely narrow; the revisional court is not an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence in the absence of perversity, jurisdictional error, or patent defect of law when there are concurrent findings of conviction. (Paras 13-17)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Statements made by the accused during examination under Section 313, while not evidence stricto sensu, can be used to lend credence to or corroborate the prosecution's evidence. (Paras 21-24)

(C) Evidence of hostile witness - The testimony of a hostile witness is not effaced from the record; the parts of the version which are dependable and consistent with the prosecution or defence evidence can be accepted. (Paras 26-27)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - To be considered an expert, it must be shown that the person has made a special study of the subject or acquired special experience; a person with extensive practical experience is an expert regardless of formal academic degrees. (Paras 38-39) (E) Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - Driving a vehicle on the right side of the road, thereby failing to adhere to road regulations, constitutes negligence and is the proximate cause of an accident. (Paras 32-35) (F) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Benevolent provisions of the Act cannot be extended to persons convicted of rash and negligent driving of heavy-duty vehicles, as deterrence is a primary consideration in reducing road accidents. (Paras 43-46)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was driving a bus and lost control, crossing to the opposite side of the road and hitting a stationary vehicle, which in turn hit another vehicle. Three persons sustained injuries, including one grievous injury. The petitioner claimed the accident occurred due to a mechanical failure (breakdown of the patta). The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner admitted to driving the bus. The mechanical examination conducted by an experienced professional revealed no mechanical defects. Eye-witness testimony corroborated that the bus had left its side of the road and hit the other vehicles. The injuries were medically proved. The plea of mechanical failure was rejected for lack of evidence.

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction; whether the accident resulted from negligence or mechanical failure; and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, the court cannot re-analyze evidence unless the findings are perverse or untenable. Driving on the wrong side of the road is prima facie negligence. Practical expertise suffices for expert testimony under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Deterrence in rash driving cases precludes the grant of probation.

Result: revision petition fails, and it is dismissed.