Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bhag Singh vs State Of H.P on 10 March, 2026
( 2026:HHC:6364 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 418 of 2015.
Reserved on: 24.02.2026.
Decided on: 10 March, 2026.
.
Bhag Singh .... Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent.
of
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. rt For the Petitioner: Dr Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/10 of 2015 vide which the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Criminal Case No. 3/2 of 2014/12 were upheld. (Parties 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS2 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) .
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian of Penal Code (for short "IPC"). It was asserted that the informant Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) was riding a rt motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-0279 on 09.08.2012. Pyare Lal (PW-2) was sitting as a pillion rider.
They reached Awari at about 8.45 A.M., when a private bus bearing registration No. HP-69-2252 attempted to overtake the motorcycle at a high speed. However, a vehicle came from the opposite side, and the bus driver turned the bus to avoid the accident and hit the motorcycle. The motorcyclists fell and sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the high speed and negligence of the bus driver. The injured were taken to the hospital, and intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded in the police station, and H.C. Bodh Raj (PW-13) was sent to the hospital for verification. He filed an application (Ex.PW10/A) for medical examination of the ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 3 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) injured. Dr Deepak (PW-10) examined Pyare Lal and found that he had sustained simple injuries. He issued MLC (Ex.PW10/B). He also examined Subhash Chander and found .
that he had sustained multiple injuries. He issued MLC (Ex.PW10/E). These injuries could have been caused in a motor vehicle accident. H.C. Bodh Raj recorded the statement of (Ex.PW1/A) of Subhash Chander and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ex.PW12/A) was registered. H.C. Bodh Raj rt investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW13/A). He took the photographs (Ex. 13/B-1 to Ex.PW13/B-6) with the help of the official camera. He seized the bus and motorcycle along with documents vide memos (Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW1/B). The owner of the bus, Mahender Singh (PW-7), issued a certificate (Ex.PW7/A) stating that the accused was driving the bus at the time of the accident.
Sukhdev (PW-5) examined the bus and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW5/A). Dev Raj (PW-9) examined the motorcycle and found that there was no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. However, damage to head light cover, mud guard and rear-view mirror was caused in the ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 4 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW9/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation challan was prepared and .
presented before the learned trial Court.
3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, to which he rt pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Pyare Lal (PW-2) had sustained injuries in the accident. Manmohan (PW-3), Constable Pankaj Kumar (PW-6) and Bhag Singh (PW-8) witnessed the recoveries. Abhishek Chandel (PW-4) is an eyewitness. Sukh Dev (PW-5) examined the bus. Mahender Singh (PW-7) is the owner of the bus. Dev Raj (PW-9) examined the motorcycle. Dr Deepak (PW-10) examined the injured. Constable Rajneesh Kumar (PW-11) proved the entry in the daily diary. Inspector Sohan Lal (PW-12) signed the FIR ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 5 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) and prepared the challan. H.C. Bodh Raj (PW-13) investigated the matter.
5. Accused in his statement recorded under Section .
313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he was driving the bus bearing registration No. HP-69-2252 on 09.08.2012 at about 8.45 A.M. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-0279 was going of ahead of the bus towards Bilaspur, and Subhash and Pyare Lal had fallen from the motorcycle, however, he denied that the rt bus had hit the motorcycle. He admitted that the police had visited the spot, prepared the site plan, seized the bus and took the photographs. He also admitted that the bus was mechanically examined and that the owner had issued a certificate showing that he (accused) was driving the bus at the time of the accident. He stated that a false FIR was registered against him, and he had not caused any accident. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused had not disputed that he was driving the bus at the time of the accident.
The statements of the injured proved that the bus had attempted to overtake the motorcycle, the driver steered the bus towards the motorcycle when a truck came from the ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 6 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) opposite side, and the bus hit the motorcycle, causing injuries to the motorcycle rider and pillion rider. The statement made by the mechanic in his cross-examination that the motorcycle .
would have fallen towards the left side was not probable. The defence taken by the accused that the motorcycle had fallen due to the difference in height of the metalled and unmetalled of portions of the road was also not believable. The accused should not have attempted to overtake the motorcycle when rt the truck was coming from the opposite side. His negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, causing injuries to the motorcyclists. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC and sentenced him as under: -
Sr. No. Offence under Sentence imposed which convicted
1. Sec. 279 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months.
2. Sec. 337 IPC Simple imprisonment for six months and fine to the tune of ₹ 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
7 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate of Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the accused was negligent in attempting to overtake rt the motorcycle on a curve when a truck was coming from the opposite side. He steered the bus, hitting the motorcycle and causing injuries to the motorcyclists. Plea taken by the accused that the motorcycle had lost balance was not probable.
The admission made by the mechanic that the motorcycle should have fallen towards the left side was not believable.
Learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. There was no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court; hence, the appeal was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 8 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) petition asserting that the learned Courts below have erred in appreciating the material on record. It was brought on record that the place of occurrence was a busy place on the National .
Highway, but no independent witness was joined by the police.
The truck was going downhill, whereas the bus and the motorcycle were moving uphill. The difference in height of the of metalled and unmetalled portions of the road was 2 ½ inch which made it highly probable that the motorcycle had skidded rt on its own. The prosecution had failed to prove the exact rashness and negligence of the accused. The admission in the cross-examination of the mechanic that the motorcycle would have fallen on the left side of the road was wrongly ignored by the learned Courts below. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.
9. I have heard Dr Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
10. Dr Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in appreciating the material on record. There is no ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 9 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) evidence of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.
Learned Courts below wrongly ignored the admission made by the mechanic that the motorcycle would have fallen towards .
the left side of the road after it was hit by the bus. Injuries were noticed by the medical officer on the right side of the body of the injured, which made it probable that the motorcycle had of skidded on its own. Learned Courts below erred in not extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the rt accused. He prayed that the present revision be allowed, judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside, or in the alternative, the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act be granted to the accused. Hence, he relied upon Manoj Chauhan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. R. No. 326 of 2014, decided on 23.09.2025; State of H.P. vs. Ram Pal, Cr. Appeal No. 332 of 2012 decided on 11.09.2025, Lekh Raj @ Raju vs. State of H.P., Cr. R. No. 4166 of 2013 decided on 27.08.2025, Pawan Kumar vs. State of H. P., Cr. R. No. 227 of 2015 decided on 08.01.2026 and Chellammal & Anr. vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025, decided on 22.04.2025 in support of his submissions.
::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS10 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )
11. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that both the learned Courts below have rightly held that the accused was negligent .
in attempting to overtake the motorcycle on a curve when the truck was coming from the opposite side. The mechanic is not shown to be an expert in physics, and his statement was rightly of rejected by the learned Courts below. The motorcycle was moving uphill, and the motorcyclists would have attempted to rt save the motorcycle after it was hit by the bus; therefore, the possibility of falling towards the right side could not be ruled out. This Court should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below while exercising the revisional jurisdiction; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204:
(2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that a revisional ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 11 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It was observed at page 207: -
.
"10. Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision of against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests rt jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-
founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings.
14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v.
Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1294, wherein it was observed at page 695:
"14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 CrPC, which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS 12 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.
15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit .
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13) "12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an of inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision rtis to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error, and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which, upon the face of it, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 13 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories .
aforestated. Even the framing of the charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC."
15. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 544: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 37: 2018 SCC of OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the rt absence of any perversity. It was observed at page 169:
"12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the grounds for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452: 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp.
454-55, para 5)
5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court, nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 14 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) and come to its conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise .
tantamount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation in concluding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the of oral evidence. ..."
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this rt Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19]. This Court held that the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. The following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 135) "14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 15 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or .
capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
16. This position was reiterated in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) of 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page 205: rt "16. It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.
17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is, therefore, in the negative."
17. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18. The accused did not dispute in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was driving the ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 16 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) bus on 09.08.2012 at 8.45 A.M. He has also admitted that the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-0279 was moving ahead of the bus. He also did not dispute that Subhash Chander .
and Pyare Lal had fallen. The only dispute is whether the bus had hit the motorcycle or the motorcycle had skidded on its own.
of
19. Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) stated that when the motorcycle reached near Awari, a bus bearing registration rt No. HP-69-2252 attempted to overtake it on a curve. A truck came from the opposite side, and the driver steered the bus towards the motorcycle and hit it. The motorcycle lost its balance and fell on the spot. The accused was driving the bus at the time of the accident. He stated in his cross-examination that there was a school towards the left side and shops towards the right side. He could not say the time from which the bus was following the motorcycle or the number of times the horn was sounded by the driver of the bus. There was a curve 40 meters behind the place of the accident, and the bus had to be slowed to negotiate the curve. He volunteered to say that the bus could be moved in third gear at the curve. He admitted that the road goes uphill for about 16 meters, and 25-30 passengers ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 17 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) were sitting in the bus. The bus driver had attempted to overtake the motorcycle wrongly. The truck was coming down hill. The mirror of the motorcycle was broken because of the .
accident. He denied that he was driving the motorcycle on the edge and fell off.
20. Payare Lal (PW-2) stated that when the motorcycle of had reached near Awari, a bus bearing registration No. HP-69- 2252 attempted to overtake it at a high speed.
rt A truck came from the opposite side, and the bus driver steered it towards the motorcycle. The motorcycle fell on the unmetalled portion of the road. He stated in his cross-examination that the motorcycle was being driven at a speed of 20-25 kilometres per hour. The place of the accident was located at a distance of 40- 50 meters from the bridge. There was a curve near the bridge, and the vehicle had to be slowed down to negotiate the curve.
The road goes uphill after the curve. The truck was being driven at a slow speed, and the truck driver had attempted to apply the brakes. The motorcycle was being driven at a distance of 5-6 inches from the edge of the road. The bus driver had not sounded the horn before overtaking the motorcycle. The bus was being driven on the right side of the ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 18 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) motorcycle. The mirror was damaged by the accident. He admitted that a small vehicle would fall towards the opposite side in case it is hit by a larger vehicle, and the occupants would .
sustain injuries on the left side.
21. Abhishek Chandel (PW-4) stated that he was travelling in the bus on 09.08.2012, when the bus reached near of Awari school, a motorcycle fell. He got off the bus. The people were saying that the motorcyclists had fallen. He could not say rt whose negligence led to the accident. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He stated in his cross-examination that there was a slight curve at the site of the accident. He did not remember that the driver was overtaking the motorcycle when a vehicle came from the opposite side, and the bus driver steered it towards the left side of the road. He denied his previous statement recorded by the police. He stated in his cross-examination that no passengers had disclosed that the bus had hit the motorcycle. There was a difference in the height of the metalled and unmetalled portions of the road.
22. This witness was permitted to be cross-examined and confronted with his previous statement. He denied his ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 19 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) previous statement recorded by the police. H.C. Bodh Raj (PW-
13) specifically stated that he had recorded the statement of Abhishek Chandel as per his version. This statement was not .
challenged in his cross-examination, and a general suggestion was put to him that he had not recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version, which was denied by the of Investigating Officer. A denied suggestion does not amount to any proof and cannot be used for discarding the statement of rt the witnesses. Therefore, witness Abhishek Chandel is shown to have made two inconsistent statements -- one before the police that the accident had occurred due to the overtaking of the motorcycle by the bus and another before the Court that the accused was not overtaking the motorcycle. Both these statements cannot stand together, and his credit has been impeached under Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn., (1976) 1 SCC 727 that where a witness has been thoroughly discredited by confronting him with the previous statement, his statement cannot be relied upon. However, when he is confronted with some portions of the previous ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 20 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) statement, his credibility is shaken to that extent, and the rest of the statement can be relied upon. It was observed:
.
"52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clearly that even in a criminal prosecution, when a witness is cross- examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether, as a result of such cross-examination and of contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed regarding a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, rt he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto."
23. This Court also took a similar view in Ian Stilman versus. State 2002(2) ShimLC 16 wherein it was observed:
"12. It is now well settled that when a witness who has been called by the prosecution is permitted to be cross- examined on behalf of the prosecution, such a witness loses credibility and cannot be relied upon by the defence. We find support for the view we have taken from the various authorities of the Apex Court. In Jagir Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1400, the Apex Court observed:::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
21 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) "It is now well settled that when a witness, who has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit this witness altogether and not merely to .
get rid of a part of his testimony. "
24. Therefore, his testimony cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case.
of
25. Statements of motorcyclists are corroborated by the report of mechanical examination (Ex.PW9/A) in which it was rt specifically mentioned that head light cover was scratched on the right side, the mud guard had a dent on the right side, and the rear-view mirror had broken. Dev Raj (PW-9) conducted the mechanical examination of the motorcycle. He stated in his examination-in-chief that the damage was caused to head light, mud guard and rear-view mirror in the accident.
Photographs (Ex.PW13/B-1 to Ex.PW13/B-4) also show damage to the rear side of the motorcycle, proving that the motorcycle was hit by something. Therefore, the statements of Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Payare Lal (PW-2) are duly corroborated by the mechanical report and the photographs, and these were rightly accepted by the learned Courts below.
::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS22 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )
26. Sukh Dev (PW-5) conducted the mechanical examination of the bus and found no defect in it that could have led to the accident. He stated in his cross-examination that if a .
large vehicle hits a small vehicle, the small vehicle would fall towards the left side. It was submitted that the statement of this witness in cross-examination makes the prosecution's of case highly doubtful because the injuries were noticed on the right side of the body of the motorcyclists and not on the left rt side. This submission cannot be accepted. Sukh Dev (PW-5) mentioned his qualification as Matriculate and ITI, in the report (Ex.PW5/A). It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that he is not an expert in physics but only a mechanic, and his testimony regarding the direction of fall could not be accepted. The motorcycle was moving, and the motorcyclists would have attempted to save themselves from falling;
therefore, the possibility of their falling towards the right side cannot be ruled out.
27. It is also submitted that the place of the accident was highly populated and the school and shops were located on the spot, but no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. This submission will not help the petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS23 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) There is no evidence that any independent person was present on the spot who had witnessed the occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution's case cannot be doubted because of the non-
.
examination of any independent witness.
28. It was submitted that the prosecution has not established the negligence of the accused, and the mere high of speed of the bus is not sufficient to infer the negligence of the accused. This submission will not help the accused.
rt The statements of Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Pyare Lal (PW-2) show that the bus driver had attempted to overtake the motorcycle on a curve when a truck was coming from the opposite side of the road. Rule 6 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 provides that the driver of a motor vehicle shall not pass a vehicle travelling in the same direction as himself on a curve if his passing is likely to cause inconvenience or danger to other traffic proceeding in any direction and without getting signal from the driver ahead of him. It was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shammi Malik v. Amrik Singh, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 1266: (1998) 2 RCR (Civil) 14 (2) that the driver of the vehicle cannot overtake ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 24 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) when another vehicle is coming from the opposite side. It was observed at page 15:
.
"5. ...Regulation 6 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, provides that the driver of a motor vehicle shall not pass a vehicle travelling in the same direction if the driver ahead of him has not signalled that he may be over-taken and if his passing is likely to cause inconvenience or danger to other traffic proceeding in any direction. In this case, it is not the case of the truck of driver was the driver of the car who had given him a signal that he may be overtaken. In fact, the truck driver should not have overtaken the car when he had noticed a truck coming from the opposite direction. It is also not rt the case of the truck driver that the truck driver did not apply the brakes or did not slow the vehicle. Rather, it is the case of the truck driver that the speed of the car was slow. A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in K.N. Nithyananda v. Mysore State Agro Industries Corporation, by its Managing Director Bangalore and another, AIR 1973 Mysore 314, in context with Regulation 4 (now Regulation 6), has held that the drivers of automatically propelled vehicles, when attempting to overtake vehicles going ahead of them should wait for the proper opportunity viz., slackness in traffic on the same road before doing so. They are duty-bound to exercise sufficient care and caution by looking ahead and behind to ascertain that it would be safe for them to overtake such a vehicle. A further duty is cast on them to give a proper signal to the driver of the vehicle ahead to indicate that they would be overtaking the vehicle and wait for a reply signal from the driver permitting them to overtake and thereby indicating that the road is clear and there would be no danger in overtaking. The evidence of RW-1, Amrik Singh, a truck driver, makes it abundantly clear that he did not at all exercise any caution while overtaking the Maruti car or while stopping his vehicle all of a sudden. In these ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
25 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that Amrik Singh, a truck driver, was not only rash in the manner of driving the truck while overtaking the Maruti car but was also negligent in stopping his vehicle all of a sudden, thereby causing the accident."
.
29. A similar view was taken by this Court in State of H.P. vs Piar Chand 2003 (2) Shim. LC 341, wherein it was observed:
of "19. In Raj Kumar v. State of H.P. 1997 (2) Sim. L.C. 161, learned single Judge of this Court, while dealing with a similar situation, has held as under: -
rt"13. It goes without saying that the drivers of automatically propelled vehicles, when attempting to overtake vehicles going ahead of them, ought to wait for the proper opportunity. A duty is cast on them to exercise sufficient care and caution by looking ahead and behind to ascertain that it would be safe for them to overtake the vehicle moving ahead of them. A further duty is cast on them to give a proper signal to the driver of the vehicle ahead to indicate that they would be overtaking the vehicles and wait for a reply signal from that driver permitting them to overtake and thereby indicating that the road ahead is clear and there would be no danger in overtaking. If these minimum precautions are not observed by drivers of automatically propelled vehicles, while overtaking the vehicles going ahead of them, it will have to be considered that such driving is rash and negligent."
20. In the case in hand, the accused, while overtaking the truck, was required to take the minimum precaution to have awaited for proper opportunity to overtake the truck and taking necessary caution to see whether any ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 26 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) vehicle was not coming from the opposite side and to give a proper signal to the driver of the truck and wait for a reply signal from the driver of the truck. This has not been done by the accused and, therefore, he was negligent in driving the Jeep."
.
30. In the present case, the accused overtook the motorcycle on a curve when another vehicle was coming from the opposite side, contrary to the Rules of the Road of Regulations. There is no evidence that the motorcyclist had signalled the petitioner to overtake him. Therefore, the rt petitioner was in breach of the statutory regulations, which led to the accident. Therefore, he was rightly held guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC.
31. It is undisputed that motorcyclists Subash Chander Chandel and Pyare Lal had sustained injuries in the accident.
The accused admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Dr Deepak (PW-10) also proved that Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Pyare Lal (PW-2) had sustained injuries which could have been caused by an accident.
This was not suggested to be incorrect. Therefore, it was duly proved on record that Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Pyare Lal (PW-2) had sustained injuries in the accident caused ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 27 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) by the negligence of the accused, and he was rightly convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC.
.
32. In Manoj Chauhan (supra), the identity of the driver was not proved. However. In the present case, the accused had not disputed his identity. Therefore, the judgment of Manoj of Chauhan (supra) does not apply to the present case.
33. In Ram Pal (supra), the prosecution had asserted rt that the accident occurred due to the high speed of the bus, which was not held to be sufficient. In the present case, the accident occurred because of a violation of Rule 6 of the Rules of the Road Regulations. Therefore, the cited judgment does not apply to the present case.
34. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC, and for six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 500/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 28 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) Court in Dalbir Singh Versus State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 that a deterrent sentence is to be awarded to a person convicted of rash or negligent driving. It was observed:
.
"11. Courts must bear in mind that when any plea is made based on S. 4 of the PO Act for application to a convicted person under S. 304-A of I.P.C., road accidents have proliferated to an alarming extent, and the toll is galloping up day by day in India and that no solution is of in sight nor suggested by any quarters to bring them down. When this Court lamented two decades ago that "more people die of road accidents than by most dis- eases, so much so the Indian highways are among the rt top killers of the country, the saturation of accidents was not even half of what it is today. So V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., has suggested in the said decision, thus :
"Rashness and negligence are relative concepts, not absolute abstractions. In our current condi-
tions, the law under S. 304-A, I.P.C. and under the rubric of negligence, must have due regard to the fatal frequency of rash driving of heavy-duty ve-
hicles and speeding menaces."
12. In State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju (1987) 1 SCC 538 this Court did not allow a sentence of fine, imposed on a driver who was convicted under S. 304-A, I.P.C. to remain in force although the High Court too had con- firmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing the death of a human being. In that case, this Court en- hanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months besides imposing a fine.
13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences of visiting the victims and their families, Criminal Courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under S. 304-A, I.P.C. as at-
::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS29 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) tracting the benevolent provisions of S. 4 of the PO Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be im- posed for the offence of causing death by rash or negli- gent driving of automobiles, one of the prime consider- ations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals .
the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that rash driving need not necessarily cause an of accident, or even if any accident occurs it need not nec- essarily result in the death of any human being, or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence, and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would rt be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence of causing the death of a human being due to his callous driving of a vehicle, he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the Courts can play, par- ticularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to the callous driving of automobiles."
35. A similar view was taken in State of Punjab v.
Balwinder Singh, (2012) 2 SCC 182, wherein it was held: -
"13. It is a settled law that sentencing must have a policy of correction. If anyone has to become a good driver, they must have better training in traffic laws and moral responsibility, with special reference to the potential injury to human life and limb. Considering the increased number of road accidents, this Court, on several occasions, has reminded the criminal courts dealing with the offences relating to motor accidents that they cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. We ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 30 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalbir Singh [(2000) 5 SCC 82: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208].
36. Similarly, the judgment in State of Punjab v. Saurabh .
Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 751: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 278, wherein it was observed at page 196:
"25. Before parting with the case, we are compelled to observe that India has a disreputable record of road accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the of drivers. They feel that they are the "Emperors of all they survey". Drunkenness contributes to careless driving, where other people become their prey. The poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians rt think of uncertainty, and the civilised persons drive in constant fear, but are still apprehensive about the obnoxious attitude of the people who project themselves as "larger than life". In such circumstances, we are bound to observe that the lawmakers should scrutinise, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in Section 304-A IPC. We say so with immense anguish."
37. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be excessive.
38. It was submitted that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act should have been granted to the accused.
However, it is not permissible because of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir (supra). This Court is bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is unable to follow the judgments of this Court in Lekh Raj (supra) and in Pawan Kumar (supra). The Judgment of the Supreme Court in ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS 31 ( 2026:HHC:6364 ) Chellammal (supra) dealt with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of the IPC and not with the commission of offences punishable under Sections .
279 and 337 of the IPC. Hence, the cited judgment does not apply to the present case.
39. No other point was urged.
of
40. In view of above, the present revision petition fails, and it is dismissed and so are the pending applications, if any.
rt
41. Records be sent back forthwith.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10 March, 2026.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS