Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed a criminal revision and affirmed the concurrent findings convicting an accused driver for a fatal road accident, maintaining the sentence imposed for negligent driving and related offences. The case concerned a morning collision in which a vehicle struck a child while pedestrians were walking with a herd of buffaloes on the roadway, leading to the child’s death from head injuries. The Court held that where pedestrians and cattle are present on the road, a driver is expected to slow down and proceed with caution, and that failing to reduce speed in such circumstances amounts to negligence. It found that the accused did not moderate the vehicle’s speed despite cattle movement and drove in a manner that caused the fatality.

The criminal revision petition arose from a road accident in which a pedestrian sustained fatal injuries after being hit by a vehicle while walking along a public road with cattle. The prosecution alleged that the accused was driving a Scorpio vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the accident and the subsequent death of the victim. It was further alleged that the accused fled the spot without rendering assistance to the injured person.

Also Read: Reserved Candidates Outscoring Open Cut-Off Eligible For Open Category Posts; Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals In Rajasthan High Court Recruitment Dispute

Following investigation, a challan was filed accusing the driver of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act. The trial court, after examining eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and documentary material, convicted the accused and imposed sentences of imprisonment and fine, directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no material infirmity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence.

Aggrieved, the accused filed a criminal revision petition contending that the prosecution had failed to establish the involvement of the vehicle, that the informant had turned hostile, that some witnesses could not identify the vehicle or the driver, and that no independent witness had been examined. It was argued that the interception of the vehicle at the barrier was based on suspicion and could not connect the accused with the offence. The State opposed the revision, submitting that the identity of the vehicle and the role of the accused stood established through consistent evidence and admissions on record.

The Court began by outlining the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, observing that “a revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law.” It noted that where there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts, interference is warranted only in cases of perversity or gross illegality.

On the issue of evidence, the Court recorded that “the testimony that the witness had noticed the registration number of the vehicle was not challenged in the cross-examination,” and held that such unchallenged testimony could not later be disputed. The Court further stated that “the effect of non-cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has not been disputed.”

Dealing with the contention that the informant was declared hostile, the Court observed that “the testimony of a hostile witness is not effaced from the record,” and that the portions of such testimony which are corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon. It found that the informant’s inability to identify the driver did not undermine the prosecution case, particularly since “the accused admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was driving the vehicle.”

The Court also examined the physical and circumstantial evidence, noting that “the front glass of the vehicle was damaged and no explanation was provided for it,” and treated this as an incriminating circumstance. It further observed that the site plan and witness testimony showed that the vehicle had moved towards the wrong side of the road, recording that “driving the vehicle on the wrong side of the road amounts to negligence.”

With respect to the manner of driving, the Court noted that speed is relative and held that “a driver was supposed to drive the vehicle carefully so as to avoid any injury to any person or animal,” particularly when pedestrians and cattle were present on the road. On medical evidence, the Court recorded that “the injury could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident,” and concluded that the death was a direct consequence of the accident.

Summarising its assessment, the Court stated that “the learned Courts below had rightly held that the vehicle being driven by the accused had caused the accident,” and found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings.

Also Read: Mere Project Interest Cannot Implead Non-Signatory In Arbitration Without Contractual Participation; Himachal Pradesh High Court

After considering the submissions and the material on record, the Court recorded that “the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. A copy of this judgment, along with the record of the learned Courts below, be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: M/s Y.P. Sood and Parveen Chauhan, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Param Jeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:39278
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2014
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla