Accused Can’t Be Held Liable Based On High Speed Alone: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Man In Motor Accident Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that the Trial Court could not have accepted a case that the truck had hit a stationary bus when initially it was projected that both the vehicles were moving.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has acquitted a man in a motor accident case, observing that the accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone.
A Criminal Revision Petition was preferred by the accused against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge by which his conviction and sentence were upheld.
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held, “This Court also held in State of H.P. Vs. Madan Lal Latest H.L.J. (2) 925 that speed alone is not a criterion for judging rashness or negligence. … Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do.”
The Bench said that the Trial Court could not have accepted a case that the truck had hit a stationary bus when initially it was projected that both the vehicles were moving.
Advocate Nand Lal Chauhan appeared for the Petitioner/Accused while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Jitender K. Sharma appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
The Police presented a challan before the Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). It was asserted that the informant was travelling in a bus and when it reached near Hatli Bridge at about 12:30 a.m., a truck came from the opposite side. Both vehicles were moving at a high speed and their drivers could not control them. The vehicles hit each other and it was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence and high speed of the drivers. An FIR was registered and the mechanical examination of the bus and truck found that there was no defect in them which could have led to the accident.
After the investigation, it was found that the accident had allegedly occurred due to the negligence of the accused who was driving the truck in a state of intoxication. Allegedly, he did not have a valid driving license and hence, the challan was prepared and presented before the Trial Court. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offences punishable under Sections 187 and 181 of the MV Act. Being aggrieved, he filed an Appeal before the Appellate Court but the same was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “It was specifically mentioned in the FIR that both vehicles were moving at a high speed, and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both vehicles. The prosecution changed this version during the Trial and projected by examining Arun Sharma (PW-7) and Sunil Kumar (PW-1) that the bus was stopped and the truck hit a stationary bus. Thus, the prosecution changed the very edifice on which the prosecution is based.”
The Court added that both the Courts erred in convicting and sentencing the accused, and it was wrongly held that the identity of the accused was established by relying upon inadmissible evidence.
“In any case, Kishori Lal (PW-12) and Pritam Singh (PW-10) did not say that the bus was stopped, and this version was made highly doubtful. … The fact that the prosecution had changed the sub-stratum of its case was overlooked; therefore, the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are liable to be interfered with even while exercising a revisional jurisdiction”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, directed the accused to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court which shall be effective for six months with a stipulation that in an event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this Judgment or on grant of the leave, the Petitioner on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Deep Raj v. State of H.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:19449)
