Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 20.11.2025 vs Swaroop Singh on 15 December, 2025
2025:HHC:43463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 206 of 2015
Reserved on: 20.11.2025
.
Date of Decision: 15.12.2025
State of H.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Swaroop Singh ...Respondent
of
Coram rt
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Appellant/State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.
For the Respondent : Mr Naresh Kaul, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2014, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. II, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 22025:HHC:43463
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police filed a charge sheet against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences .
punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC. It was asserted that the informant, Firtu Ram (PW10), was working as a labourer at Laharu. He was returning to Nurpur with his of uncle Kumar on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HP38A-
1562 on 08.10.2015 at about 5:30 PM. The motorcycle reached rt Malakwal at about 5:45 PM when a truck bearing registration No. HP-38-3997 came from the opposite side and hit the motorcycle.
The informant and Kumar fell on the roadside. They sustained injuries. They were carried in a van to the hospital. The accused, Swaroop Singh, was driving the truck at the time of the accident.
The accident occurred due to his negligence and the high speed of the truck. The matter was reported to the police, and entry No. 29 (Ext.PW7/A) was registered in the Police Station. HC Subhash Chand (PW14) and HHC Lal Singh (PW8) were sent to verify the correctness of the information. HC Subhash Chand (PW14) recorded the Firtu Ram's statement (Ext.PW10/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW12/A) was registered. HC Subhash Chand (PW14) went to the spot and prepared the site ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:43463 plan (Ext.PW14/A). Rajinder Soga (PW4) took the photographs of the spot (Ext.PW4/A to Ext. PW4/D) whose negatives are Ext.PW4/E to Ext.PW4/H. The truck was seized vide memo .
(Ext.PW3/A). Dr B.M. Gupta (PW6) examined Kumar and found that he had sustained multiple injuries which could have been caused in a Motor Vehicle accident. He advised X-rays and a CT of scan and referred him to a higher institution for management.
He issued the MLC (Ext.PW6/A). Dr B.M. Gupta (PW6) also rt examined Firtu Ram (PW10) and found that he had sustained multiple injuries and a suspected fracture of the left femur. He advised X-ray and issued the MLC (Ext.PW6/B). Kumar subsequently succumbed to his injuries. Dr Raman Sharma (PW2) conducted the postmortem examination of Kumar and found that Kumar had died due to multiple injuries, especially the head injury leading to brain haemorrhage and cardiac respiratory failure. He issued the report (Ext.PW2/A). He preserved the viscera and handed it over to the police official accompanying the deceased. Narinder Sood (PW5) conducted the mechanical examination of the motorcycle and found that it had no defect that could have caused the accident. The viscera was sent to SFSL, and no poison/alcohol was detected in the viscera ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:43463 as per the report (Ext.PW12/C). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the 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, 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC, to rt which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. Naresh Kumar (PW1) did not support the prosecution's case. Dr Raman Sharma (PW2) conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. Tarsem Singh (PW3) witnessed the recovery. Rajinder Soga (PW4) took the photographs. Narinder Sood (PW5) mechanically examined the motorcycle. Dr B.M. Gupta (PW6) conducted the medical examination of Kumar and Firtu Ram. HC Ashwani Kumar (PW7) proved the entry in the daily diary. HHC Lal Singh (PW8) carried the viscera to SFSL Junga. ASI Ramesh Chand (PW9) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. Firtu Ram (PW10) is an eyewitness and a pillion rider. Khilwan (PW11) came to know ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 5 2025:HHC:43463 about the accident and visited the hospital. Nathu Ram (PW12) signed the FIR and prepared the supplementary challan. Nek Ram (PW13) prepared the challan. ASI Subhash Chand (PW14) .
investigated the matter. Jaswant Singh (PW15) did not support the prosecution's case.
5. The accused filed a written statement asserting that of he was not driving the truck at the time of the accident. He was falsely implicated to get the claim from the Motor Accident rt Claims Tribunal (MACT). Firtu Ram (PW10) deposed falsely because he is the nephew of the deceased. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses on his own. The site plan does not depict the correct spot position. The motorcyclist was negligently driving the motorcycle, which led to the accident. The accused did not produce any evidence in his defence.
6. Learned Trial Court held that Naresh Kumar (PW1) was the conductor of the truck. He did not support the prosecution's case. The Investigating Officer admitted that Kumar did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, which showed that he was not competent to drive the motorcycle. The spot map shows that there was sufficient space ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 6 2025:HHC:43463 towards the left side of the motorcyclist, and the motorcyclist was at fault. Therefore, the accused was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 .
and 304-A of the IPC.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal of asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were rt discarded without any reason. There was no proof of any enmity between the witnesses and the accused. Firtu Ram (PW10) specifically deposed about the rash and negligent driving by the accused. He stated that the accident occurred due to the rash driving by the accused and the high speed of the truck. The mere fact that Naresh Kumar (PW1) did not support the prosecution's case was not sufficient to discard it. The accused did not dispute the fact that the accident had occurred with the truck and that he was driving the truck at the time of the accident. He has not explained any reason for the accident, and the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 72025:HHC:43463
8. I have heard Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.
.
9. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material on record. It was duly proved by the of informant's statement that the truck was being driven at a high speed. The accused did not dispute that he was driving the truck rt at the time of the accident. The high speed was the proximate cause of the accident. The cleaner Naresh Kumar was supposed to support the driver of the truck, and his testimony should not have been used to discard the prosecution's case. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
10. Mr Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the motorcyclist was negligent, he did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, and he drove the motorcycle after leaving sufficient space towards his left side.
The proximate cause of the accident was driving the motorcycle towards the wrong side of the road. The learned Trial Court had ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 8 2025:HHC:43463 taken a reasonable view, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be .
dismissed.
11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
of
12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in rt Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 that the Court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal if the judgment is patently perverse or is based on a misreading of the material evidence, and no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. It was observed:
12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
13. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed:::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 9
2025:HHC:43463 "12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or 'double' presumption of innocence after .
acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court of for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, rt Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104, Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320, and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114."
14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. The accused filed a written statement under Section 313(5) of the Cr.P.C. in which he admitted that he was driving the truck at the time of the accident. He denied his rashness or negligence while driving the truck and attributed the negligence to the deceased. Thus, the only question to be determined is the rashness or negligence.
16. Subhash Chand (PW14) admitted in his cross-
examination that the motorcyclist Kumar had a learner's licence ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 10 2025:HHC:43463 that authorised him to drive two-wheelers in Punjab. He could not have carried a pillion rider. The licence had expired on 26.12.2004, much before the accident. Learned Trial Court held .
that since the motorcyclists did not have a valid driving licence;
therefore, he was negligent in driving the motorcycle. This finding cannot be sustained. It was laid down in State of Government v. Bhawanesh Kumar, 1957 SCC OnLine MP 102, that the absence of a driving licence does not constitute rashness or rt negligence. It was observed:
"15. We are equally clear that from the mere fact that the accused-respondent did not possess a driving licence, it cannot be positively inferred that he was guilty of rashness or negligence in driving a heavy vehicle like a truck. There is evidence of Jabbar (D. W. 1), which shows that the accused is in charge of the Sarodha Head Workshop, and he has been testing and driving motor vehicles for 1½ years. According to him, he is an experienced motor driver, and consequently, there is nothing to show that in undertaking to drive a heavy motor vehicle like a truck, he was undertaking a risk for which there was no justification whatsoever. Whether he drives a vehicle with a licence or without a licence, the law expects him to be neither rash nor negligent in the performance of his task, and we will judge his conduct in the matter as if he were the most qualified driver who brings to his task the ordinary reasonable competency of persons driving heavy motor vehicles."
17. This position was reiterated in Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 337 : (1968) 2 SCR 515: AIR 1968 SC 829, wherein it was observed:
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 112025:HHC:43463
12.... There is no presumption in law that a person who possesses only a learner's licence or possesses no licence at all does not know how to drive. For various reasons, not excluding sheer indifference, he might not have taken a regular licence. The prosecution's evidence that Appellant .
1 had driven the jeep to various places on the day previous to the occurrence is proof of the fact that he knew how to drive. There was no basis for the conclusion that it was a sheer stroke of good fortune that he did not meet with any accident on that day.
xxxxx of
14....In the present case, we do not know what was the proximate cause of the accident was. We cannot rule out the possibility of the accident having been caused by the fault of the deceased. The question of whether Appellant 1 rt was proficient in driving a Jeep or not does not resolves the issue. His proficiency in driving might furnish a defence, which a learner could not have, but the absence of proficiency did not make him guilty. The only question was whether, in point of fact, he was not competent to drive and his incompetence was the cause of the death of the person concerned.
18. Therefore, the motorcyclist could not have been held to be negligent merely because he did not possess a valid driving licence.
19. Subhash Chand (PW14) admitted in his cross-
examination that 13 feet of road was available towards the left side of the motorcyclist. The site plan (Ext.PW14/A) mentions that the accident had occurred almost in the middle of the road.
13 feet of the space was available towards the left side of the motorcycle. The photographs (Ext.PW4/B to Ext.PW4/D) also ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:43463 show that the truck was being driven towards the extreme left side of the road, and the motorcycle is seen trapped under the rear tyre of the truck. This shows that the position of the vehicles .
had not changed after the accident. Thus, the site plan and the photographs showed that the motorcycle was being driven towards the right side of the road whereas the truck was being of driven towards the left side of the road.
20. Firtu Ram (PW10) stated in his cross-examination rt that the truck and motorcycle had a head-on collision. He denied that the motorcycle had hit the rear tyre of the truck. This is contrary to the photographs and the site plan, wherein the motorcycle is shown under the rear tyre of the truck. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly discarded the statement of Firtu Ram (PW10).
21. Naresh Kumar (PW1) stated that he was travelling as a cleaner in the truck. The motorcycle hit the rear tyre of the truck.
The accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcyclists.
He was permitted to be cross-examined. He denied that he was not the cleaner of the truck. He also denied that the truck was being driven at a high speed and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused.
::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 132025:HHC:43463
22. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, which means that the prosecution does not consider him worthy of credit. His statement that the motorcycle had hit the rear tyre .
of the truck is corroborated by the photographs and has to be accepted as correct. Therefore, it is duly proved on record that the motorcycle was being driven after leaving sufficient space of towards its left side, and the motorcycle had hit the rear tyre of the truck.
23. rt The Central Government has framed the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, to regulate the movement of traffic. Rule 2 provides that the driver of a vehicle shall drive the vehicle as close to the left side of the road as may be expedient and shall allow all the traffic which is proceeding in the opposite direction to pass on his right side. It was laid down in Fagu Moharana vs. State, AIR 1961 Orissa 71, that driving the vehicle on the right side of the road amounts to negligence. It was observed:
"The car was on the left side of the road, leaving a space of nearly 10 feet on its right side. The bus, however, was on the right side of the road, leaving a gap of nearly 10 feet on its left side. There is thus no doubt that the car was coming on the proper side, whereas the bus was coming from the opposite direction on the wrong side. The width of the bus is only 7 feet 6 inches, and as there was a space of more than 10 feet on the left side, the bus could easily have ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:43463 avoided the accident if it had travelled on the left side of the road."
24. Similarly, it was held in State of H.P. Vs. Dinesh Kumar 2008 H.L.J. 399, where the vehicle was taken towards the right .
side of the road, the driver was negligent. It was observed:
"The spot map Ext. P.W. 10/A would show that at point 'A on the right side of the road, there were blood stain marks and a V-shape slipper of deceased Anu. Point 'E' is the of place where P.W. 1 Chuni Lal was standing at the time of the accident, and point 'G' is the place where P.W. 3 Anil Kumar was standing. The jeep was going from Hamirpur to Nadaun. The point 'A' in the spot map Ext. P.W. 10/A is rt almost on the extreme right side of the road."
25. This position was reiterated in State of H.P. vs. Niti Raj 2009 Cr.L.J. 1922, and it was held:
"16. The evidence in the present case has to be examined in light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court. In the present case, some factors stand out clearly. The width of the pucca portion of the road was 10 ft. 6 inches. On the left side, while going from Dangri to Kangoo, there was a 7 ft. kacha portion, and on the other side, there was an 11 ft. kacha portion. The total width of the road was about 28 ft. The injured person was coming from the Dangri side and was walking on the left side of the road. This has been stated both by the injured as well as by PW-
6. This fact is also apparent from the fact that after he was hit, the injured person fell into the drain. A drain is always on the edge of the road. The learned Sessions Judge held, and it has also been argued before me, that nobody has stated that the motorcycle was on the wrong side. This fact is apparent from the statement of the witnesses, who state that they were on the extreme left side, and the motorcycle, which was coming from the opposite side, hit them. It does not need a genius to conclude that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:43463 motorcycle was on the extreme right side of the road and therefore on the wrong side."
26. Therefore, the motorcyclist had not followed the Rules of the Road Regulation, which led to the accident and the .
learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the motorcyclist and not due to the negligence of the accused. This was a reasonable view which of could have been taken based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, and this Court will not interfere with the rt reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible.
27. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
28. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the respondent/accused is directed to furnish his personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/-
with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:43463 against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused, on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
.
30. Records be sent back forthwith along with a copy of the judgment.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge of 15th December, 2025 (Nikita) rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2025 20:35:41 :::CIS