Vehicles Do Not Usually Leave The Road And Fall Into A Gorge : Himachal Pradesh High Court Applies Res Ipsa Loquitur, Modifies Sentence In Fatal Truck Accident Caused Due To Negligence
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla modified the sentence of a truck driver involved in a fatal road accident, holding that the circumstances of the incident supported a finding of negligent driving. The Court observed that the truck’s fall from the roadway, together with the mechanical inspection showing no defect, made the accident itself indicative of negligence. It further noted that the postmortem report confirmed death caused by crush injuries consistent with a road accident, reinforcing that negligence had been established. While discarding the earlier conviction under Section 304-AA IPC due to the absence of legally sufficient proof of intoxication, the Court held the driver liable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and imposed a correspondingly revised sentence.
The matter arose from a road accident in which a truck carrying apple boxes went off the road near Hasan Valley and fell into a gorge. One occupant died from crush injuries, and the other sustained multiple injuries. Police officials reached the spot after receiving information and found the vehicle down the slope, the injured occupant in an ambulance, and the deceased lying on the roadside. The injured occupant stated that he was the conductor and that the deceased was the driver; however, the vehicle owner later informed the police that the injured person had been employed as the driver and the deceased as the conductor. The accused also admitted to being the driver during his examination.
The police recorded the scene, collected blood-stained soil and stones, seized the truck, and prepared inquest papers. The postmortem report indicated multiple injuries caused by blunt trauma consistent with a road accident. The mechanical examination of the truck showed no defects. The medical examination of the accused recorded injuries and noted the presence of alcohol in his blood and urine.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses, including police officials, medical experts, and the vehicle owner. Charges were framed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-AA IPC. The accused denied negligence, stating that the deceased had alighted to place a stone behind the tyre when the accident occurred. The statutory provisions relating to negligent driving, causing death by negligence, and driving under intoxication were invoked during the proceedings.
It recorded that “In the present case, the report of analysis shows that the quantity of alcohol found in the blood of the accused was 21.68mg which is much less than 150 mg%, and the accused could not be said to be intoxicated.”
On the statutory threshold under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court stated that “In the present case, the quantity of alcohol was 21.68mg%, and the accused had not violated Section 185 of the MV Act.” It further stated that “It is difficult to believe that the legislature would have penalised a person having less than 30 mg % alcohol in his blood under Section 304AA of the IPC but exonerated him under Section 185 of the MV Act.” The Court concluded that “Therefore, it is impermissible to hold that a person having less than 30 mg% alcohol can be punished under Section 304-AA of the IPC.”
The Court noted that “the accused admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was driving the vehicle” and that the statements of the owner and the accused showed that “the accused was driving the vehicle.” It recorded that “Thus, the fall of the vehicle into the gorge was admitted by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.” and that “it was duly established that the vehicle had left the road and fallen into the gorge.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Syed Akbar versus State of Karnataka (1980) and reproduced its observations on the applicability of res ipsa loquitur, including: “in drawing permissive inferences under S. 114, Evidence Act… whether or not… such a high degree of probability… has been established which will convince reasonable men with regard to the existence of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.” The judgment further recorded: “Such simplified and pragmatic application of the notion of res ipsa loquitur… is subject to all the principles… before an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.”
Applying this reasoning, the Court stated: “It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the vehicles do not usually leave the road and fall into a gorge.” It held: “Therefore, a principle of res ipsa locutor can be applied to the present case.” and concluded that “the only inference which can be drawn is that the accused was negligently driving the vehicle, which led to the accident.”
The court recorded that “Dr Vinod Bhardwaj (PW17) conducted the postmortem examination and found multiple injuries which could have been caused in a road traffic accident.” It stated that “Therefore, it was duly proved on record that Kandru @ Krishan had died in a Motor Vehicle accident, which was caused due to the negligence of the accused.”
The Court directed that “the conviction recorded under Section 304-AA is reduced to Section 304A of the IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 18 months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 4 months.”
“He will be entitled to the benefit of a set off as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of the imprisonment already undergone by him during the trial. A modified jail warrant be prepared accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General
Case Title: Dilbag Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:37656
Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 228 of 2024
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
