Crossing Central Line While Overtaking Amounts To Rash And Negligent Driving: Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Acquittal
Court reiterates limited scope of interference in acquittal appeals but finds trial court’s view perverse for ignoring material evidence and settled law on witness credibility.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that crossing the central line while overtaking another vehicle constitutes rash and negligent driving, setting aside a trial court’s acquittal in a road accident case. The Court found that the trial court had misread material evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and spot photographs, which clearly showed that the offending vehicle had moved to the wrong side of the road and caused the collision.
While acknowledging that appellate courts should exercise restraint in interfering with acquittals, the Court held that interference is justified where the trial court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or results in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the trial court had ignored material evidence and adopted an unreasonable approach, it said.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “In the present case, the accused overtook the car and hit the motorcycle coming from the opposite side; therefore, he had breached Rule 6 of the Rule of Road Regulations, which was the proximate cause of the accident. It has been proved on record that the accused had driven the car towards the right side of the road and had crossed the central line...”.
“The learned counsel for the accused admitted the MLCs and treatment summary, which show that Sada Nand had sustained simple injuries, and Vivek had sustained grievous injuries. These injuries were caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused; hence, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt for the commission of Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court ignored the evidence on record and failed to notice the Rules of Road Regulations. It took a view which could not have been taken by any reasonable person aware of the Rules of the Road Regulations and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, acquitting the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC, cannot be sustained”, the Bench further noted.
Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General appeared for the appellant and Advocate Lakshay Thakur appeared for the respondent.
In the impugned judgment dated August 25, 2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, the Court had acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The State challenged the acquittal, contending that the trial court had wrongly rejected consistent eyewitness testimony and overemphasised minor contradictions.
As per the prosecution case, the accident occurred on November 5, 2010 when a car, driven by the accused, overtook another vehicle near a dairy farm and collided with a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction, where the motorcyclist and the pillion rider sustained injuries.
The Court noted that the accused himself admitted under Section 313 CrPC that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, a fact that could be used to lend corroboration to the prosecution’s case.
The relevant issue before the Court was the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of a prosecution witness who turned hostile and attributed negligence to the motorcyclist.
“Learned Trial Court held that the witnesses admitted that 40-50 persons had gathered on the spot. However, the prosecution failed to examine them, and an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. This finding is also not sustainable. The people gathered on the spot after the accident, and their testimonies would not have revealed the cause of the accident. Hence, no adverse inference can be drawn for their non-examination”, the Bench noted.
The Court further found that the trial court had erred in rejecting the testimonies of other eyewitnesses merely on the ground that they were related to the injured. Reiterating settled law, the Court observed that a related witness is not necessarily an “interested witness” and their evidence cannot be discarded solely on that basis if it is otherwise credible and consistent.
The Bench relied on the site plan and photographic evidence, which clearly showed that the offending car had crossed the central line and was on the wrong side of the road.
The Court also criticised the trial court for ignoring the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, particularly the prohibition on overtaking when it is likely to endanger oncoming traffic. “The photographs of the spot also show that the car had crossed the central line, and it was towards the right side of the road. The learned Trial Court held that 5 feet 5-inch road was available towards the left side of the motorcycle, and the motorcyclist could have avoided the accident by driving the motorcycle towards the left side of the road. These findings cannot be sustained because Learned Trial Court had failed to notice the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, while recording these findings. 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 if his passing is likely to cause inconvenience or danger to other traffic proceeding in any direction”, it noted.
Case Title: State of H.P. v. Dhruv Dev [Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:3751]
Appearances:
Appellant: Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Respondent: Lakshay Thakur, Advocate.