Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence to Upset Concurrent Conviction for Rash Driving U/S 304-A IPC Absent Perversity: Himachal Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-01

HP High Court Upholds 2-Year Sentence for Driver in Fatal Accident, Reinforces Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

Shimla - The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a driver convicted for causing the death of a four-year-old girl by rash and negligent driving in 2005. Upholding the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla reinforced the principle that a revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the lower courts' findings are perverse or have led to a gross miscarriage of justice.

The court confirmed the conviction of Mohinder Pal under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (failure to report an accident).

Background of the Case

The tragic incident occurred on November 24, 2005, in Reckong Peo. The victim, a four-year-old girl named Kumari Tuni, was fatally struck by a Mahindra pickup truck (HP63-0706) driven by the petitioner, Mohinder Pal. According to the prosecution, the girl's mother, Mohan Kumari (PW11), had momentarily gone inside her residence, leaving her daughter basking in the sun outside their grocery shop. She returned to find her daughter missing, blood on the road, and the pickup truck speeding away. She discovered her injured daughter lying inside the shop, covered with a gunny sack. The child was rushed to the nearby hospital but was declared brought dead.

The trial court convicted Pal, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 304-A IPC. The conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge, Kinnaur. The present revision petition was filed before the High Court challenging these concurrent findings.

Arguments Before the High Court

Petitioner's Submissions:

The counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sheetal Vyas, argued that the lower courts had failed to properly appreciate the evidence. Key contentions included: - Contradictions in Witness Testimonies: Discrepancies in the statements of eyewitnesses regarding the time and location of the incident were highlighted. - Lack of Physical Evidence: The absence of blood stains on the vehicle was presented as evidence that falsified the prosecution's narrative. - Inaction of Eyewitnesses: It was argued that the failure of eyewitnesses to apprehend the driver or stop the vehicle made their presence at the scene doubtful. - Negligence of Victim: The petitioner's counsel suggested that the victim's name, Tuni, meant "deaf," implying potential negligence on the part of the child.

State's Submissions:

The Additional Advocate General, Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, defended the lower courts' judgments, arguing that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited. He contended that the court should not re-appreciate evidence as the concurrent findings were well-reasoned and based on the material on record.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Kainthla began by delineating the scope of the court's revisional jurisdiction, citing Supreme Court precedents like Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda . The judgment emphasized that the purpose of revision is to correct a "patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law," not to act as a second appellate court.

The Court meticulously addressed and dismissed each of the petitioner's arguments:

• On Witness Credibility: The testimonies of eyewitnesses, including the child's mother (PW11) and others (PW6, PW10), were found to be consistent and corroborative on material facts. Minor discrepancies in time or location were deemed natural due to the passage of time and not significant enough to discredit their entire testimony. The court observed that "the Court cannot accept a particular reaction from every witness" when addressing the failure to apprehend the driver.
• On Negligence: The Court found clear evidence of negligence. The site plan and photographs showed that the accident occurred on the 'kacha' (unpaved) portion of the road, indicating the driver had veered off the main road. > "The vehicle had sufficient space on the 'pakka' portion (08 feet 06 inches), but it still hit the girl on the 'kachha' portion, which shows that the driver had failed to take care while driving the vehicle and avoid the risk to the pedestrian..."
• On Defence Evidence: The defence witnesses produced by the accused were found to be unreliable and contradictory, and their testimonies were rightly discarded by the lower courts.

Deterrent Sentencing for Road Accidents

The High Court also upheld the imposition of the maximum sentence of two years for the offense under Section 304-A IPC. Justice Kainthla noted the accused's "scant regard for human life," evidenced by his failure to take the injured child to the hospital despite it being nearby.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dalbir Singh Versus State of Haryana , the judgment reiterated the need for deterrent sentences in cases of rash and negligent driving to combat the "galloping trend in road accidents in India."

"A professional driver... must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness... He must always keep in mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted... he cannot escape from a jail sentence."

Final Decision

Finding no perversity, legal error, or gross miscarriage of justice in the judgments of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the revision petition. The conviction and sentence of Mohinder Pal were affirmed.