Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 07.04.2026 vs State Of H.P on 25 May, 2026
2026:HHC:19419
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 332 of 2024
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Decided on: 25.05.2026
.
Ranjeet Singh ....... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. .... Respondent
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
rt
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr Varun Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 22026:HHC:19419 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 are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences of punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act). It rt was asserted that the informant Sant Ram (PW10) was driving the car bearing registration No. HP-31C-6022 on 07.03.2013. He reached Hamsafar Hotel Chowk at about 9:15 PM, a Nano car bearing registration No. HP-33T-9298 came from Sunder Nagar side at high speed and hit the car being driven by the informant.
The Nano car thereafter hit a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-31A-4392. The driver of the Nano car fled the scene after the incident. He had earlier hit a cart near the old bus stand. An intimation was given to the police, and the police recorded an entry in the daily diary (Ext.PW8/A). HC Pawan Kumar (PW9) and Constable Ram Chand were sent to the spot to verify the information. HC Pawan Kumar recorded the informant's statement (Ext.PW9/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW17/K) was registered. HC Pawan Kumar prepared the ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 3 2026:HHC:19419 site plan (Ext.PW9/B) and recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their versions. ASI Sarwan Kumar (PW17) .
investigated the matter further. He took the photographs of the spot (Ext.PW17/J1 to Ext.PW17/J5). He seized the car bearing registration No. HP-31C-6022, along with the documents vide memo (Ext.PW2/A). He also seized the Nano car bearing of registration No. HP-33T-9298 and motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-31A-4392 vide memo (Ext.PW3/A). He filed rt applications (Ext.PW17/A and Ext.PW17/B) for conducting the mechanical examination of the informant's car bearing registration No. HP-31C-6022 and motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-31A-4392. Ramesh Kumar conducted the mechanical examination of the informant's car and found that it had no defect that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW11/A). He also examined the motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-31A-4392 and issued the report (Ext.PW11/B). Sarwan Kumar prepared the site plan (Ext.PW17/C) of the place where the Nano car had hit the cart. He filed an application (Ext.PW17/D) for conducting the medical examination of Ranjeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh. He obtained the MLC's (Ext.PA1 and Ext.PA2). Dr J.S. Roorki (PW14) examined ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 4 2026:HHC:19419 Hasmol and Neeraj (Tek Singh) and found that Hasmol had sustained simple injuries and Neeraj (Tek Singh) had sustained .
simple and grievous injuries that could have been caused by means of a blunt weapon. He issued the MLCs (Ext.PW14/A and Ext. PW14/B). The documents of the Nano car were seized vide memo (Ext.PW3/F). The damaged cart was seized vide memo of (Ext.PW3/A). An application (Ext. PW17/E) was filed for conducting the mechanical examination of the Nano car. Krishan rt Lal (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the Nano car bearing registration No. HP-33A-9298 and found that it had no mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW4/A). Kuldeep Kumar issued a certificate (Ext.PW13/A) stating that the accused was driving the Nano car at the time of the accident. 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. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 5 2026:HHC:19419 Section 187 of the MV Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
.
4. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. Jatin Saini (PW1) and Manish Kumar (PW12) are the eyewitnesses. Kamal Kishore (PW2), HHC Krishan Lal (PW3), and of Dushayant Sharma (PW6) witnessed the recovery. Krishan Lal (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the Nano car.
rt Tek Singh (PW5) was driving the motorcycle. Dr S.K. Malhotra (PW7) went through the X-ray. HHC Tej Ram (PW8) proved the entry in the daily diary. H.C. Pawan Kumar (PW9) conducted the initial investigation. Sant Ram (PW10) is the informant. Ramesh Kumar (PW11) conducted the mechanical examination of the informant's car and the motorcycle. Kuldeep Kumar (PW13) is the owner of the Nano car. Dr J.S. Roorki (PW14) conducted the medical examination of the injured, Hasmol and Neeraj @ Tek Singh. Suresh Kumar (PW15) did not support the prosecution's case. ASI Puran Chand (PW16) signed and registered the FIR.
Sarwan Kumar (PW17) investigated the matter.
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He claimed that he was not ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 6 2026:HHC:19419 driving the Nano car on the date of the accident. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.
.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the evidence on record proved that the accused was driving the Nano car on the date of the accident. The car had hit a cart near the old bus stand, and of thereafter, the informant's car and the motorcycle. The Nano car was being driven towards the right side of the road, which clearly rt showed that the accused was negligent. Mechanical expert admitted that the accident had occurred due to the bursting of the tyre, but the possibility of the tyre bursting after hitting the cart could not be ruled out. The medical evidence proved that Neeraj @ Tek Singh had sustained grievous injuries, whereas Hasmol and Kuldeep had sustained simple injuries in the accident. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as follows:
Sections Sentences 279 of the Indian The accused was sentenced to Penal Code undergo simple imprisonment for three months, pay a fine of ₹1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 72026:HHC:19419 337 of the Indian The accused was sentenced to Penal Code undergo simple imprisonment for three months, pay a fine of .
₹500/- and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days.
Section 338 of the The accused was sentenced to of Indian Penal Code undergo simple imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of ₹1000/-, and, in default of rt payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Section 187 of the The accused was sentenced to Motor Vehicle Act pay a fine of ₹ 500/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2 days.
All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundar Nagar, District Mandi (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the accused was driving the Nano car on the date of the accident. The car had initially hit a cart near the old bus ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 8 2026:HHC:19419 stand, and thereafter, the informant's car and the motorcycle.
The defence taken by the accused that the bursting of the tyre of .
the Nano car led to the accident would not help him because the possibility of the tyre bursting after hitting the cart could not be ruled out. Tek Singh had sustained grievous injuries, whereas Kuldeep and Hasmol had sustained simple injuries in the of accident. The cart, car and motorcycle were damaged after the accident. Learned Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused.
rt The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court was adequate, and no interference is required with the sentence. Hence, the appeal filed by the accused was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present revision asserting that the learned Courts below erred in appreciating the material on record. Krishan Lal (PW4) admitted in his cross-examination that the accident was caused by the bursting of the tyre. The possibility of the vehicle becoming uncontrollable and moving to the right side could not be ruled out in the present case. The correctness of the spot map was not proved by any witness. The informant was coming from Lake/Kapahi road and was joining the main road. He had failed to ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 9 2026:HHC:19419 take precautions before joining the main road, which led to the accident. The statements of prosecution witnesses contradicted .
each other, and the learned Courts below erred in relying upon their testimonies. Hasmol, the owner of the cart, was not examined, and an adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution. The duration of the injuries mentioned of in the MLCs did not tally with the prosecution's case, which made the prosecution's case highly suspect. Therefore, it was rt prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgment and orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
9. I have heard Mr Varun Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.
10. Mr Varun Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Courts below erred in relying upon the prosecution's case. The statement of Krishan Lal (PW4) clearly showed that the accident had occurred because of a mechanical defect in the vehicle. When two versions are appearing on the record, the version in favour of the accused should have been accepted rather than the version in favour of the prosecution. The informant was negligent in driving his car ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 10 2026:HHC:19419 from a link road to the main road without taking care of the traffic moving on the road. The statements of prosecution .
witnesses contradicted each other on a material aspect, and the learned Courts below failed to take notice of the contradictions.
Therefore, he prayed that the present revision be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set of aside.
11. rt Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that both the Courts have consistently held that the possibility of the tyre getting burst after hitting the cart could not be ruled out. This was a reasonable conclusion that could have been drawn based on the evidence on record. The accused had driven the Nano car towards the right side of the road contrary to the Rules of Road Regulation 1989. Hence, the learned Trial Court had rightly recorded the conviction, and the learned Appellate Court had rightly affirmed the same. There is no infirmity in the judgments and order passed by learned Courts below. This Court should not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by learned Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Hence, he prayed that the present revision be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 112026:HHC:19419
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 of 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: -
rt "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 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 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 that 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.::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 12
2026:HHC:19419
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 of regularities of any proceeding or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.
rt
15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460:
(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, where the 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 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 is 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 13 2026:HHC:19419 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 of 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 rt 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 OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 14 2026:HHC:19419 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 and come to its conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well of as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned rt 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 oral evidence. ..."
13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 15 2026:HHC:19419 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 perverse or untenable in law or is grossly of erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the rt 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) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page 205:
"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."::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 16
2026:HHC:19419
17. A similar view was taken in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it was observed:
.
"27. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings [See: Bir Singh (supra)]. This Court is of the view that it is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. As held by this Court in Southern Sales of & 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 rt jurisdictional error.
28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the absence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court."
18. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. Kuldeep Kumar (PW13) is the owner of the Nano car.
He stated that he was travelling with the accused in a Nano car.
The accused was driving the car. When they reached near the Hamsafar Hotel, the tyre suddenly burst, and the driver lost control. The car hit another car on the roadside. The accident did not occur due to the negligence of the accused. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He denied that the accused was negligently driving the car and had hit a cart near the bus stand.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 172026:HHC:19419 He denied that the car had hit the motorcycle. He stated in the cross-examination by learned counsel for the defence that there .
was a sharp curve near the place of the accident. He admitted that the tyre towards the driver's side burst while negotiating the curve, and the driver lost control of the vehicle. He admitted that there was no negligence on the part of the accused because the of accused had tried to control the vehicle, but the vehicle had become uncontrollable.
rt
20. The testimony of this witness clearly establishes that the accused was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident.
His testimony that the vehicle became uncontrollable due to the sudden bursting of the tyre is not believable. The site plan (Ext.PW9/B) does not show any dragging marks, suggesting that the driver had lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle was dragged towards the other side of the road. No question was asked from HC Pawan Kumar (PW9) about the dragging marks.
Therefore, his testimony that the accused lost control of the Nano car due to a tyre burst cannot be relied upon
21. Manish Kumar (PW12) stated that he was present in his shop, and a cart was coming towards Chatrokhari towards its correct side. A Nano car came from Chatrokhari. The driver drove ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 18 2026:HHC:19419 the Nano car towards the right side of the road and hit the cart.
The driver sped away from the spot. The boy driving the cart had .
sustained injuries. Thereafter, the Nano car had hit a motorcycle at some distance. The accused was driving the car, and the accident had occurred due to his negligence.
of
22. His testimony is duly corroborated by the site plan (Ext.PW17/C) in which the place of accident has been shown as rt Mark-X, which is located on the extreme right-hand side of a vehicle coming from Chatrokhari. Therefore, the site plan corroborates the statement of this witness that the accident had occurred towards the right side of the road.
23. Manish Kumar (PW12) admitted in his cross-
examination that he was present in his shop and was selling vegetables to the customers. He denied that the accident had occurred in his presence. He was inside the shop and came out after hearing the noise of the accident.
24. It was submitted that the testimony of this witness that he was inside the shop and came out after hearing the noise of the accident shows that he is not an eyewitness. This submission will not help the accused. Even if he had come out of ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 19 2026:HHC:19419 the shop after hearing the noise of the accident, he could have easily observed that the cart was towards the left side of the road.
.
The position of the cart would not have changed immediately after the accident, and his testimony cannot be doubted because he stated that he had come out of the shop after hearing the noise of the accident.
of
25. It was submitted that Hasmol, the owner of the cart, rt was not examined, and an adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution for withholding him. The record shows that the summons issued to Hasmol alias Chotu was returned with the report that he had left the room rented by him and his whereabouts were not known. Thus, his non-
examination was due to the circumstances beyond the control of any person, and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.
26. Krishan Lal (PW4) examined the Nano car and issued the report (Ext.PW4/A). The report mentions that the right-side tyre of the Nano car was found to be burst. The right-side rim was found bent, the right-side socket spring was bent, and the hub bracket of the right-side tyre was bent. The chassis frame was bent from the front, the main cylinder of the right side was ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 20 2026:HHC:19419 found leaking, the headlights were damaged, the bonnet, the front windshield, front windowpane of the right side were found .
damaged. This report clearly shows that there was extensive damage to the right side of the Nano car, and the possibility of damage to the right side tyre in the accident cannot be ruled out.
of
27. Krishan Lal (PW4) admitted in his cross-examination that in case of the bursting of the tyre, the vehicle would move rt towards one side and the driver would lose control over the vehicle. The tyre could get burst by coming in contact with a sharp-edged object or a nail. He admitted that the accident had occurred due to the bursting of the tyre.
28. The statement of this witness that the accident had occurred due to the bursting of the tyre is merely an opinion because, admittedly, he was not present on the spot. He admitted that the vehicle would move towards one direction in case of the bursting of the tyre. But he has not specified the direction in which the vehicle would move after the bursting of the tyre.
Therefore, it is not known whether the vehicle would move towards the side where the tyre had burst or towards the other side. Further, as already noticed, there are no marks of the dragging of the vehicle, clearly showing that the defence version ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 21 2026:HHC:19419 that the tyre had burst and the car was dragged towards one side is not correct.
.
29. In any case, the learned Courts below had rightly held that the possibility of the tyre getting burst after hitting the cart cannot be ruled out. The accused was negligent in not stopping of after hitting the cart and moving from the spot. But for the movement of the car after the accident with the cart, the other rt accident would not have occurred. Therefore, the learned Courts below were right in holding that the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the accused.
30. Sant Ram (PW10) stated that he was going to his home in his vehicle bearing registration No. HP-31C-6022. When he reached near Hamsafar Hotel Chowk, a Nano car came from the bus stand towards Dhanotu at high speed. The Nano car hit the informant's car and a motorcycle. The motorcycle and the informant's car were extensively damaged in the accident. The driver of the motorcycle, Niju, had also sustained injuries. The driver of the Nano car fled the scene. The accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the Nano Car. The accused was driving the car on the date of the accident, and one other person was travelling with him. He admitted in his cross-
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 222026:HHC:19419 examination that the place of the accident had a straight road. He admitted that the Nano car suddenly turned towards a side and .
hit his car. He denied that the Nano car was not being driven at a high speed. He was not aware that the tyre burst of the Nano car had led to the accident.
of
31. The statement of this witness that the driver of the Nano car drove the car towards the right side of the road is rt corroborated by the site plan (Ext.PW9/B) in which the place of accident is towards the right side of the road for a vehicle coming from Sunder Nagar and going towards Dhanotu.
32. It was submitted that the informant was coming from the link road towards the main highway, and he was supposed to take care before entering the highway. The informant had failed to do so, which caused the accident. This submission is not acceptable. The accident had occurred on the main highway and not at the place where the link road joins the highway. Therefore, it cannot be said that the informant had suddenly joined the main highway without taking care of the traffic moving on the highway, and this submission is rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 232026:HHC:19419
33. The statement of this witness is duly corroborated by Tek Singh (PW5), who stated that he was going from Dhanotu .
towards Sunder Nagar on his motorcycle on 09.03.2013 at about 9:00-9:15 p.m. When he reached near Hamsafar Hotel, a Nano car came from Sunder Nagar at high speed. The nano car hit another car, and thereafter, the motorcycle on the wrong side of of the road. He fell, and his motorcycle was damaged. The accident had occurred because the driver of the Nano car had driven it rt towards the right side of the road. He admitted in his cross-
examination that there was a curve at the place of the accident.
He denied that the tyre of the Nano car had burst, and the driver lost control of the vehicle.
34. It was submitted that this witness had mentioned the date of the accident as 09.03.2013, whereas the accident had occurred on 07.03.2013. Therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon. This submission is only stated to be rejected. Learned Trial Court had rightly pointed out that this witness had made the statement after one and a half years of the accident. Therefore, a slight error in the date of the accident was natural as the memories fail with time, and a slight discrepancy can occur in the statement.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 242026:HHC:19419
35. Jatin Saini (PW1) stated that he was going towards his home on 07.03.2013. When he reached near Hamsafar Hotel, he .
saw a Nano car coming from Bhojpur at high speed and hit another car bearing registration No. 6022. The Nano car thereafter hit a motorcycle and a parapet. The Nano car was being driven towards the wrong side of the road. The driver ran of away from the spot. He stated in his cross-examination that the tyre of the nano car had burst and the car was dragged towards rt the right side of the road.
36. The statements of these witnesses corroborate the prosecution's version that the driver of the Nano car had taken it towards the right side of the road. The learned courts below had rightly held that driving the car towards the right side of the road amounts to negligence.
37. 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. ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 25 2026:HHC:19419 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 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 avoided the accident if it had travelled on the left side of the road."
rt
38. 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 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 almost on the extreme right side of the road."
39. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 26 2026:HHC:19419 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 and 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 of 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 motorcycle was on the extreme right side of the road and rt therefore on the wrong side."
40. In the present case, the nano car was being driven towards the right side of the road when it had hit the cart, the informant's car and the motorcycle. Driving the car towards the right side of the road was the proximate cause of the accident, and the learned Courts below were right in holding that the accused was negligent in driving the Nano car.
41. Dr J.S. Roorki (PW14) conducted the medical examination of the Hasmol on 09.03.2013 at 11:55 a.m. and found simple injuries. He also examined Neeraj @ Tek Singh and found grievous injuries. The MLC of Kuldeep was not disputed and was marked on admission. The MLC of Kuldeep (Ext.PA1) shows that he had sustained simple injuries.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 272026:HHC:19419
42. It was submitted that the medical examination of Hasmol and Neeraj @ Tek Singh was conducted on 09.03.2013, .
and as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the probable duration of the injury was 2 to 3 days. The delay in the examination of a Hasmol and Neeraj @ Tek Singh, and the probable duration, would make the prosecution's case highly of suspect. This submission cannot be accepted. The accident had occurred on 07.03.2013, and the victims were examined on rt 09.03.2013. Thus, there was a time lapse of 2 days in the examination of the injured, and the medical evidence corroborates that the accident had occurred on 07.03.2013.
43. In the present case, the investigation was conducted by two officers. HC Pawan Kumar (PW9) had conducted the initial investigation. He had recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW9/A). Thereafter, he handed over the case file and further investigation was conducted by SI Sarwan Kumar (PW17), who got the case file on 08.03.2013. Therefore, some delay was inevitable. Even otherwise, it is trite to say that a defective investigation does not lead to the rejection of the prosecution case because in such a situation, the Court would be playing in the hands of the ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 28 2026:HHC:19419 Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer would be able to ensure the acquittal of any person by conducting an improper .
investigation. Therefore, not much advantage can be derived from the delay in the medical examination of the injured.
44. Thus, it was duly proved on record that the accused of was negligently driving a Nano car on the date of the accident, and his negligence caused simple injuries to Kuldeep Kumar and rt Hasmol and a simple and grievous injury to Tek Singh.
45. The witnesses consistently stated that the accused had absconded from the spot after the accident. The accused denied this fact, and Kuldeep Kumar (PW13) also stated that the accused had not left the place of the accident. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses and the Investigating Officer that the accused had left the spot. Section 134 casts an obligation upon the driver of the vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident to secure medical attention for the injured person by carrying him to the nearest medical practitioner or the hospital. In the present case, three persons were injured in the accident, and the accused was under an obligation to secure medical aid for them. However, he failed to do so and violated the provision of Section 134, which is ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 29 2026:HHC:19419 punishable under Section 187 of the MV Act. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused of the .
commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
46. It was submitted that the learned Courts below erred of in denying the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused, and such a benefit should have been extended to him.
rt This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh Versus State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted to a person convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC. 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 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 diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country", the saturation of accident toll was not even half of what it is today. So, V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., has suggested in the said decision, thus:::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 30
2026:HHC:19419 "Rashness and negligence are relative concepts, not absolute abstractions. In our current conditions, 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 vehicles 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 confirmed the said sentence when an accused was of convicted of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing the death of a human being. In that case, this Court enhanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment rt 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 attracting the benevolent provisions of S. 4 of the PO Act.
While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations 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 accident, or even if any accident occurs, it need not necessarily 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 be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always keep in his 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, ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 31 2026:HHC:19419 particularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to the callous driving of automobiles."
.
47. A similar view was taken in Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 9 SCC 208, wherein it was observed: -
6. Learned counsel lastly made an alternative plea that the Probation of Offenders Act may be applied to secure his job. This Court has held in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana of [(2000) 5 SCC 82] that the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked in cases involving rash or negligent driving of the bus resulting in the death of human rt beings."
48. This position was reiterated 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 fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalbir Singh [(2000) 5 SCC 82: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208].
49. Therefore, it is impermissible to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to a person convicted of driving a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS 322026:HHC:19419
50. The learned Trial Court had imposed a sentence of six months for the commission of an offence punishable under .
Section 338 of the IPC. The rest of the sentences were less than this sentence. Considering that three persons were injured in the accident, the sentence of six months cannot be said to be excessive, requiring any interference from the Court.
of
51. No other point was urged.
52. rt In view of the above, the present revision fails, and it is dismissed.
53. The present revision stands disposed of, and so are the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
54. The record of the learned Courts below be returned with a copy of the judgment.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 25th May, 2026 (Nikita) ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 08:23:06 :::CIS