Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the present criminal revision petition, the accused challenged the order passed by the Sessions Judge (‘Appellate Court’), wherein the conviction and sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘Trial Court’) were upheld. The accused was a truck driver who was charged under Sections 279 and 337 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 181 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) for an accident with a bus. A Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., noted that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the accused was driving the truck and not even his negligence was established and therefore the conviction and sentence was set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Background:
The informant asserted that he was travelling on a bus and when it reached Hatli Bridge, at about 12:30 a.m., a truck came from the other side. The vehicles collided as both were moving at high speed, and their drivers could not control them. The accident occurred due to the negligence and high speed of the drivers of the bus and the truck. The police seized the truck, and the cement bags it contained were handed over to its owner. A mechanical examination of the bus and the truck was conducted, and no defects were found.
After the investigation, it was determined that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the accused, who was driving the truck in a state of intoxication without a valid driving license. After examining the witnesses, the Trial Court held that the truck was being driven at a high speed. The driver of the bus had stopped after seeing the truck; however, the truck hit the bus. The accused failed to stop his vehicle, did not produce his driving license, and fled away from the spot. Hence, the Trial Court convicted the accused. He preferred an appeal against the order of the Trial Court, but the Appellate Court dismissed it.
In the present petition, the accused submitted that the Courts below erred in convicting and sentencing him. The identity of the truck driver was not proved, and the Courts below relied upon the certificate issued by the owner of the truck which named another person as the driver and did not prove that he had employed the accused. The Courts below did not appreciate that aspect. Hence, he prayed that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below be set aside.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204, wherein the Supreme Court held that the Revisional Court was not an appellate court and it could only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. The High Courts in criminal revision against conviction were not supposed to exercise jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision was extremely narrow. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688.
The Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1110, wherein wherein it was laid down that the identification of the accused by witnesses in court was of paramount importance, and that the mere statement of a witness naming the accused was not sufficient to establish his identity.
The Court noted that the owner of the truck stated the name of another person as the driver and produced a certificate for the same. The accused was present in the Court below for the hearings, but the owner was not asked to identify him. Thus, his certificate was not sufficient to prove the identity of the truck driver. Also, since the certificate was like a statement made by the witness to the police during the investigation, it was hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) and could not be proved in a Court of law. Consequently, it was observed that the accused was driving the truck at the time of the incident.
On the contention of negligence, on the part of the accused, the informant had stated that the truck came at a high speed and hit the bus. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohanta Lal Saha v. State of West Bengal, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 396, wherein it was held that the use of the term ‘high speed’ by a witness amounted to nothing unless it was elicited from the witness what is understood by the term ‘high speed’. This position was reiterated in State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493, wherein it was held that “merely because the truck was being driven at a ‘high speed’ did not bespeak either ‘negligence’ or ‘rashness’ by itself”.
The Court further noted that 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 presented that the bus was stopped, and the truck hit a stationary bus. This version should not have been accepted by the Trial Court, given the discrepancies. Thus, the Court observed that the accused could not be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that he was in breach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do.
The Court therefore concluded that both the Courts below erroneously convicted and sentenced the accused. The Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and further affirmed by the Appellate Court and acquitted the accused. The Court directed the accused to furnish bail bonds in sum of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount under Section 437-A CrPC.
[Deep Raj v. State of H.P., Cr. Revision No. 4119 of 2013, decided on 24-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Nand Lal Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Jitender K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
