Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal in Road Accident Case | Mere Usage of Term ‘High Speed’ by Witness Insufficient to Establish Negligent Driving
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla on September 11, 2025, dismissed the State’s appeal against an acquittal under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. The case concerned a 2009 accident on the Una–Nangal highway, where a bus struck a car that had been parked partly on the roadway. The Court underscored that a witness’s statement that the bus was driven at “high speed” was insufficient, by itself, to establish negligence. Noting that the informant had left the vehicle improperly parked in breach of Rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989, the acquittal was affirmed.
The case arose from an incident reported on 21 July 2009 when informant Bhisham Chander went to drop his son at DAV School in Una, Himachal Pradesh. He parked his vehicle, bearing registration number HP20B-5246, partially on the kachha and pucca portions of the road while waiting with his son inside. An HRTC bus (registration HP72-0173), driven by the accused Ram Pal, struck the parked car. The informant alleged that the accident occurred due to the accused’s negligence in driving at high speed.
Following the incident, SI Sham Lal recorded the informant’s statement, which was registered as an FIR. Photographs of the spot and site plan were prepared, and the bus and car were seized. The accused’s driving license was also taken into custody. A mechanical examination of both vehicles by HHC Saroop Lal revealed no defects that could have contributed to the accident. After completing the investigation, a challan was presented before the Court.
The learned Trial Court summoned the accused under Section 279 IPC. Ten prosecution witnesses were examined, including Baldev Singh, Mohinder Kumar, Vipin Kumar, and the informant himself. Vipin Kumar, cited as an eyewitness, did not support the prosecution’s case, stating he only came out after hearing the noise. The informant, however, maintained that the accused hit his car from the rear. The Trial Court found that the accused had the opportunity to avoid the accident as the road was straight, and skid marks indicated high speed. Consequently, the accused was convicted and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine.
The accused appealed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una. The Appellate Court held that the defence version—that the informant had applied brakes suddenly—was probable. It found insufficient evidence to establish negligence on the part of the accused, particularly in light of the contradictions in witness testimony. Accordingly, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
The State challenged this acquittal before the High Court, asserting that the Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s judgment. The State argued that the site plan and mechanical reports confirmed the accused’s negligence, and that the informant could not have suddenly applied brakes as the car was parked.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla examined the scope of interference with acquittals, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176, which held that interference is warranted only if the acquittal is perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, and no two reasonable views are possible. The Court cited Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035, and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471, reiterating that there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
The Court recorded: “The testimony of this witness is highly contradictory. He stated in his examination-in-chief that the bus had hit the car; thereafter, he stated that he came out of the shop after hearing the noise. He reiterated in his cross-examination that he had not seen the actual collision. These contradictions… make it difficult to rely upon his testimony.”
Regarding the informant’s evidence, the Court noted: “It is an admitted case that the accident occurred on the Una-Nangal highway. Rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, deals with the parking of the vehicle… every driver… shall park it in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience.” The Court found that parking on a highway without indicators amounted to negligence, citing Mohandas Nair v. M/S Vivek Transporters (2019) and Sushma v. Nitin Ganapati Rangole, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2584, which held that unattended vehicles parked without indication on highways pose danger to other road users.
The Court further recorded: “Thus, the informant was negligent in parking the car on the road without switching on the parking lights or the indicators.” On the allegation of high speed, the Court cited Mohanta Lal v. State of West Bengal, 1968 ACJ 124, and State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493, stating that “‘High speed’ is a relative term… no presumption of rashness or negligence could be drawn by invoking the maxim res ipsa loquitur.”
Ultimately, the Court concluded: “In the present case, there is no evidence of the negligence of the accused; rather, the evidence indicates the negligence of the informant. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view which could have been taken based on the evidence, and no interference is required with it while deciding an appeal against the acquittal.”
Justice Kainthla stated: “In view of the above, the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is sustainable. Hence, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.” The Court directed that the records of the lower courts be returned forthwith along with a copy of the judgment. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Pal
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:31087
Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 332 of 2012
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
