Accused Can’t Be Held Liable Based On Witnesses’ Statement Of High-speed Driving; Specific Negligence Must Be Established: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court was directed against the judgment setting aside the conviction of the accused.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
While upholding the acquittal of a bus driver in a hit-and-run case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that the accused cannot be held liable based on the statement of a witness that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed. The High Court also held that the prosecution has to establish specific negligence of the accused.
The appeal before the High Court was directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una (Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District H.P. (Trial Court) were set aside.
The Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla held, “Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on the statement of a witness that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed, and the prosecution has to establish specific negligence of the accused.”
Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sen represented the Appellant, while Advocate Divya Raj Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The police presented a charge sheet before the Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant (PW4) had gone to drop his son in a car. While they were sitting in the vehicle, an HRTC bus hit it at high speed. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. The matter was reported to the police, and an FIR was registered. After a mechanical examination was conducted, no mechanical defect was found in the vehicles which could have led to the accident.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 279 of the IPC, and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The Appellate Court held that the defence version, that the informant applied his brakes and the bus hit the car, was highly probable. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State filed the appeal before the High Court.
Reasoning
Considering the fact that the appeal was filed against a judgment of acquittal, the Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), wherein it has been held that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached.
The Bench noted that the testimony of one of the witnesses was highly contradictory. Reference was made to Rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which deals with the parking of the vehicle and reads that every driver of a Motor Vehicle parking on any road shall park it in such a way that it does not cause or is not likely to cause danger, obstruction or undue inconvenience to other road users. Rule 15(2) reads that the driver of the Motor Vehicle shall not park his vehicle on a main road or one carrying fast traffic. “Thus, it is apparent that, as per this rule, a vehicle cannot be parked on a main road or a road carrying fast traffic”, it stated.
The Bench also referred to the judgment in Mohandas Nair S/O E Kumaran Nair vs M/S Vivek Transporters (2019) that parking a vehicle on a highway without switching on indicators amounts to negligence. “Therefore, the informant was negligent in parking the car on the road without switching on the parking lights or the indicators”, it held.
The Bench found that there was no evidence of the negligence of the accused, and the evidence indicated the negligence of the informant. The Bench was of the view that the Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view which could have been taken based on the evidence, and no interference was required with it while deciding an appeal against the acquittal.
Cause Title: State of H.P. v. Ram Pal (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:31087)