Bhag Singh vs State Of H.P on 10 March, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bhag Singh vs State Of H.P on 10 March, 2026

( 2026:HHC:6364 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No. 418 of 2015.

Reserved on: 24.02.2026.

Decided on: 10 March, 2026.

.

    Bhag Singh                                                                 .... Petitioner.
                                         Versus





    State of H.P.                                                             ...Respondent.




                                                       of
    Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
rt
For the Petitioner: Dr Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

The present revision petition is directed against the

judgment dated 12.10.2015 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned

Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 33/10 of 2015 vide

which the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence

dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial

Court) in Criminal Case No. 3/2 of 2014/12 were upheld. (Parties

1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS

2 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

shall hereinafter be 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 petition are that the police presented a challan before

the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission

of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian

of
Penal Code (for short “IPC“). It was asserted that the

informant Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) was riding a
rt
motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-0279 on

09.08.2012. Pyare Lal (PW-2) was sitting as a pillion rider.

They reached Awari at about 8.45 A.M., when a private bus

bearing registration No. HP-69-2252 attempted to overtake

the motorcycle at a high speed. However, a vehicle came from

the opposite side, and the bus driver turned the bus to avoid the

accident and hit the motorcycle. The motorcyclists fell and

sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the high speed

and negligence of the bus driver. The injured were taken to the

hospital, and intimation was given to the police. An entry

(Ex.PW11/A) was recorded in the police station, and H.C. Bodh

Raj (PW-13) was sent to the hospital for verification. He filed

an application (Ex.PW10/A) for medical examination of the

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
3 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

injured. Dr Deepak (PW-10) examined Pyare Lal and found

that he had sustained simple injuries. He issued MLC

(Ex.PW10/B). He also examined Subhash Chander and found

.

that he had sustained multiple injuries. He issued MLC

(Ex.PW10/E). These injuries could have been caused in a motor

vehicle accident. H.C. Bodh Raj recorded the statement

of
(Ex.PW1/A) of Subhash Chander and sent it to the police

station, where FIR (Ex.PW12/A) was registered. H.C. Bodh Raj
rt
investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared a site

plan (Ex.PW13/A). He took the photographs (Ex. 13/B-1 to

Ex.PW13/B-6) with the help of the official camera. He seized

the bus and motorcycle along with documents vide memos

(Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW1/B). The owner of the bus, Mahender

Singh (PW-7), issued a certificate (Ex.PW7/A) stating that the

accused was driving the bus at the time of the accident.

Sukhdev (PW-5) examined the bus and found that there was no

mechanical defect in it that could have led to the accident. He

issued the report (Ex.PW5/A). Dev Raj (PW-9) examined the

motorcycle and found that there was no mechanical defect in it

that could have led to the accident. However, damage to head

light cover, mud guard and rear-view mirror was caused in the

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
4 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

accident. He issued the report (Ex.PW9/A). The statements of

witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the

completion of the investigation challan was prepared and

.

presented before the learned trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to

summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of

of
accusation was put to him for the commission of offences

punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC, to which he
rt
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its

case. Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Pyare Lal (PW-2)

had sustained injuries in the accident. Manmohan (PW-3),

Constable Pankaj Kumar (PW-6) and Bhag Singh (PW-8)

witnessed the recoveries. Abhishek Chandel (PW-4) is an

eyewitness. Sukh Dev (PW-5) examined the bus. Mahender

Singh (PW-7) is the owner of the bus. Dev Raj (PW-9)

examined the motorcycle. Dr Deepak (PW-10) examined the

injured. Constable Rajneesh Kumar (PW-11) proved the entry

in the daily diary. Inspector Sohan Lal (PW-12) signed the FIR

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
5 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

and prepared the challan. H.C. Bodh Raj (PW-13) investigated

the matter.

5. Accused in his statement recorded under Section

.

313 of Cr.P.C. admitted that he was driving the bus bearing

registration No. HP-69-2252 on 09.08.2012 at about 8.45 A.M.

A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-0279 was going

of
ahead of the bus towards Bilaspur, and Subhash and Pyare Lal

had fallen from the motorcycle, however, he denied that the
rt
bus had hit the motorcycle. He admitted that the police had

visited the spot, prepared the site plan, seized the bus and took

the photographs. He also admitted that the bus was

mechanically examined and that the owner had issued a

certificate showing that he (accused) was driving the bus at the

time of the accident. He stated that a false FIR was registered

against him, and he had not caused any accident. He did not

produce any evidence in defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the accused had not

disputed that he was driving the bus at the time of the accident.

The statements of the injured proved that the bus had

attempted to overtake the motorcycle, the driver steered the

bus towards the motorcycle when a truck came from the

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
6 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

opposite side, and the bus hit the motorcycle, causing injuries

to the motorcycle rider and pillion rider. The statement made

by the mechanic in his cross-examination that the motorcycle

.

would have fallen towards the left side was not probable. The

defence taken by the accused that the motorcycle had fallen due

to the difference in height of the metalled and unmetalled

of
portions of the road was also not believable. The accused

should not have attempted to overtake the motorcycle when
rt
the truck was coming from the opposite side. His negligence

was the proximate cause of the accident, causing injuries to the

motorcyclists. Hence, the learned Trial Court convicted the

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337

of the IPC and sentenced him as under: –

Sr. No. Offence under Sentence imposed
which convicted

1. Sec. 279 IPC Simple imprisonment for six
months.

2. Sec. 337 IPC Simple imprisonment for six
months and fine to the tune of ₹
500/-. In default of payment of
fine to further undergo simple
imprisonment for 15 days.

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS

7 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered

to run concurrently.

.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused

filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge (learned Appellate Court). Learned Appellate

of
Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial

Court that the accused was negligent in attempting to overtake
rt
the motorcycle on a curve when a truck was coming from the

opposite side. He steered the bus, hitting the motorcycle and

causing injuries to the motorcyclists. Plea taken by the

accused that the motorcycle had lost balance was not probable.

The admission made by the mechanic that the motorcycle

should have fallen towards the left side was not believable.

Learned Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the

accused. There was no infirmity in the judgment and order

passed by the learned Trial Court; hence, the appeal was

dismissed.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed

by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the present

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
8 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

petition asserting that the learned Courts below have erred in

appreciating the material on record. It was brought on record

that the place of occurrence was a busy place on the National

.

Highway, but no independent witness was joined by the police.

The truck was going downhill, whereas the bus and the

motorcycle were moving uphill. The difference in height of the

of
metalled and unmetalled portions of the road was 2 ½ inch

which made it highly probable that the motorcycle had skidded
rt
on its own. The prosecution had failed to prove the exact

rashness and negligence of the accused. The admission in the

cross-examination of the mechanic that the motorcycle would

have fallen on the left side of the road was wrongly ignored by

the learned Courts below. Therefore, it is prayed that the

present petition be allowed.

9. I have heard Dr Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate

General for the respondent/State.

10. Dr Lalit K. Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Courts below

have erred in appreciating the material on record. There is no

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
9 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

evidence of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.

Learned Courts below wrongly ignored the admission made by

the mechanic that the motorcycle would have fallen towards

.

the left side of the road after it was hit by the bus. Injuries

were noticed by the medical officer on the right side of the body

of the injured, which made it probable that the motorcycle had

of
skidded on its own. Learned Courts below erred in not

extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the
rt
accused. He prayed that the present revision be allowed,

judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set

aside, or in the alternative, the benefits of the Probation of

Offenders Act be granted to the accused. Hence, he relied upon

Manoj Chauhan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. R. No. 326 of

2014, decided on 23.09.2025; State of H.P. vs. Ram Pal, Cr. Appeal

No. 332 of 2012 decided on 11.09.2025, Lekh Raj @ Raju vs. State of

H.P., Cr. R. No. 4166 of 2013 decided on 27.08.2025, Pawan Kumar

vs. State of H. P., Cr. R. No. 227 of 2015 decided on 08.01.2026 and

Chellammal & Anr. vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police,

Criminal Appeal No. 2065 of 2025, decided on 22.04.2025 in

support of his submissions.

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS

10 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

11. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General

for the respondent-State, submitted that both the learned

Courts below have rightly held that the accused was negligent

.

in attempting to overtake the motorcycle on a curve when the

truck was coming from the opposite side. The mechanic is not

shown to be an expert in physics, and his statement was rightly

of
rejected by the learned Courts below. The motorcycle was

moving uphill, and the motorcyclists would have attempted to
rt
save the motorcycle after it was hit by the bus; therefore, the

possibility of falling towards the right side could not be ruled

out. This Court should not disturb the concurrent findings of

fact recorded by the learned Courts below while exercising the

revisional jurisdiction; hence, he prayed that the present

petition be dismissed.

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

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
11 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

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: –

.

“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

of
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
rt
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 which 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.

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 regularities of any proceeding or order made
in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:03 :::CIS
12 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the
perversity which has crept in such proceedings.

15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this
Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit

.

Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460: (2012) 4 SCC

(Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], where 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

of
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
rtis 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 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

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
13 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

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 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

of
OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to

reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the
rt
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 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

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
14 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

and come to its conclusion on the same when the
evidence has already been appreciated by the
Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal,
unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice
of the High Court which would otherwise

.

tantamount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On
scrutinising the impugned 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

of
oral evidence. …”

13. Another judgment which has also been referred to
and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this
rt
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 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

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
15 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the
decision is based on no material or where the
material facts are wholly ignored or where the
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)

of
309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page

205: rt

“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.”

17. The present revision has to be decided as per the

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18. The accused did not dispute in his statement

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was driving the

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
16 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

bus on 09.08.2012 at 8.45 A.M. He has also admitted that the

motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-23B-0279 was moving

ahead of the bus. He also did not dispute that Subhash Chander

.

and Pyare Lal had fallen. The only dispute is whether the bus

had hit the motorcycle or the motorcycle had skidded on its

own.

of

19. Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) stated that when

the motorcycle reached near Awari, a bus bearing registration
rt
No. HP-69-2252 attempted to overtake it on a curve. A truck

came from the opposite side, and the driver steered the bus

towards the motorcycle and hit it. The motorcycle lost its

balance and fell on the spot. The accused was driving the bus

at the time of the accident. He stated in his cross-examination

that there was a school towards the left side and shops towards

the right side. He could not say the time from which the bus

was following the motorcycle or the number of times the horn

was sounded by the driver of the bus. There was a curve 40

meters behind the place of the accident, and the bus had to be

slowed to negotiate the curve. He volunteered to say that the

bus could be moved in third gear at the curve. He admitted that

the road goes uphill for about 16 meters, and 25-30 passengers

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
17 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

were sitting in the bus. The bus driver had attempted to

overtake the motorcycle wrongly. The truck was coming down

hill. The mirror of the motorcycle was broken because of the

.

accident. He denied that he was driving the motorcycle on the

edge and fell off.

20. Payare Lal (PW-2) stated that when the motorcycle

of
had reached near Awari, a bus bearing registration No. HP-69-

2252 attempted to overtake it at a high speed.

rt A truck came

from the opposite side, and the bus driver steered it towards

the motorcycle. The motorcycle fell on the unmetalled portion

of the road. He stated in his cross-examination that the

motorcycle was being driven at a speed of 20-25 kilometres per

hour. The place of the accident was located at a distance of 40-

50 meters from the bridge. There was a curve near the bridge,

and the vehicle had to be slowed down to negotiate the curve.

The road goes uphill after the curve. The truck was being

driven at a slow speed, and the truck driver had attempted to

apply the brakes. The motorcycle was being driven at a

distance of 5-6 inches from the edge of the road. The bus

driver had not sounded the horn before overtaking the

motorcycle. The bus was being driven on the right side of the

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
18 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

motorcycle. The mirror was damaged by the accident. He

admitted that a small vehicle would fall towards the opposite

side in case it is hit by a larger vehicle, and the occupants would

.

sustain injuries on the left side.

21. Abhishek Chandel (PW-4) stated that he was

travelling in the bus on 09.08.2012, when the bus reached near

of
Awari school, a motorcycle fell. He got off the bus. The people

were saying that the motorcyclists had fallen. He could not say
rt
whose negligence led to the accident. He was permitted to be

cross-examined. He stated in his cross-examination that there

was a slight curve at the site of the accident. He did not

remember that the driver was overtaking the motorcycle when

a vehicle came from the opposite side, and the bus driver

steered it towards the left side of the road. He denied his

previous statement recorded by the police. He stated in his

cross-examination that no passengers had disclosed that the

bus had hit the motorcycle. There was a difference in the

height of the metalled and unmetalled portions of the road.

22. This witness was permitted to be cross-examined

and confronted with his previous statement. He denied his

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
19 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

previous statement recorded by the police. H.C. Bodh Raj (PW-

13) specifically stated that he had recorded the statement of

Abhishek Chandel as per his version. This statement was not

.

challenged in his cross-examination, and a general suggestion

was put to him that he had not recorded the statements of the

witnesses as per their version, which was denied by the

of
Investigating Officer. A denied suggestion does not amount to

any proof and cannot be used for discarding the statement of
rt
the witnesses. Therefore, witness Abhishek Chandel is shown

to have made two inconsistent statements — one before the

police that the accident had occurred due to the overtaking of

the motorcycle by the bus and another before the Court that the

accused was not overtaking the motorcycle. Both these

statements cannot stand together, and his credit has been

impeached under Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act. It

was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sat Paul v. Delhi

Admn., (1976) 1 SCC 727 that where a witness has been

thoroughly discredited by confronting him with the previous

statement, his statement cannot be relied upon. However,

when he is confronted with some portions of the previous

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
20 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

statement, his credibility is shaken to that extent, and the rest

of the statement can be relied upon. It was observed:

.

“52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clearly that

even in a criminal prosecution, when a witness is cross-
examined and contradicted with the leave of the court
by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a

matter of law, be treated as washed off the record
altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each
case whether, as a result of such cross-examination and

of
contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly
discredited or can still be believed regarding a part of
his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the
credit of the witness has not been completely shaken,
rt
he may, after reading and considering the evidence of
the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care,

accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record,
that part of his testimony which he finds to be
creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the
whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and

in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally
discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence,
discard his evidence in toto.”

23. This Court also took a similar view in Ian Stilman

versus. State 2002(2) ShimLC 16 wherein it was observed:

“12. It is now well settled that when a witness who has
been called by the prosecution is permitted to be cross-
examined on behalf of the prosecution, such a witness
loses credibility and cannot be relied upon by the
defence. We find support for the view we have taken
from the various authorities of the Apex Court. In Jagir
Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1975 Supreme
Court 1400, the Apex Court observed:

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS

21 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

“It is now well settled that when a witness, who
has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to
be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution,
the result of that course being adopted is to
discredit this witness altogether and not merely to

.

get rid of a part of his testimony. ”

24. Therefore, his testimony cannot be used to discard

the prosecution’s case.

of

25. Statements of motorcyclists are corroborated by the

report of mechanical examination (Ex.PW9/A) in which it was
rt
specifically mentioned that head light cover was scratched on

the right side, the mud guard had a dent on the right side, and

the rear-view mirror had broken. Dev Raj (PW-9) conducted

the mechanical examination of the motorcycle. He stated in his

examination-in-chief that the damage was caused to head

light, mud guard and rear-view mirror in the accident.

Photographs (Ex.PW13/B-1 to Ex.PW13/B-4) also show damage

to the rear side of the motorcycle, proving that the motorcycle

was hit by something. Therefore, the statements of Subhash

Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Payare Lal (PW-2) are duly

corroborated by the mechanical report and the photographs,

and these were rightly accepted by the learned Courts below.

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS

22 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

26. Sukh Dev (PW-5) conducted the mechanical

examination of the bus and found no defect in it that could have

led to the accident. He stated in his cross-examination that if a

.

large vehicle hits a small vehicle, the small vehicle would fall

towards the left side. It was submitted that the statement of

this witness in cross-examination makes the prosecution’s

of
case highly doubtful because the injuries were noticed on the

right side of the body of the motorcyclists and not on the left
rt
side. This submission cannot be accepted. Sukh Dev (PW-5)

mentioned his qualification as Matriculate and ITI, in the

report (Ex.PW5/A). It was rightly submitted on behalf of the

State that he is not an expert in physics but only a mechanic,

and his testimony regarding the direction of fall could not be

accepted. The motorcycle was moving, and the motorcyclists

would have attempted to save themselves from falling;

therefore, the possibility of their falling towards the right side

cannot be ruled out.

27. It is also submitted that the place of the accident

was highly populated and the school and shops were located on

the spot, but no independent witness was examined by the

prosecution. This submission will not help the petitioner.

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS

23 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

There is no evidence that any independent person was present

on the spot who had witnessed the occurrence. Therefore, the

prosecution’s case cannot be doubted because of the non-

.

examination of any independent witness.

28. It was submitted that the prosecution has not

established the negligence of the accused, and the mere high

of
speed of the bus is not sufficient to infer the negligence of the

accused. This submission will not help the accused.

rt The

statements of Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Pyare Lal

(PW-2) show that the bus driver had attempted to overtake the

motorcycle on a curve when a truck was coming from the

opposite side of the road. 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 on a curve if his passing is likely to cause

inconvenience or danger to other traffic proceeding in any

direction and without getting signal from the driver ahead of

him. It was laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Shammi Malik v. Amrik Singh, 1997 SCC OnLine P&H 1266: (1998)

2 RCR (Civil) 14 (2) that the driver of the vehicle cannot overtake

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
24 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

when another vehicle is coming from the opposite side. It was

observed at page 15:

.

“5. …Regulation 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 if the
driver ahead of him has not signalled that he may be

over-taken and if his passing is likely to cause
inconvenience or danger to other traffic proceeding in
any direction. In this case, it is not the case of the truck

of
driver was the driver of the car who had given him a
signal that he may be overtaken. In fact, the truck driver
should not have overtaken the car when he had noticed a
truck coming from the opposite direction. It is also not
rt
the case of the truck driver that the truck driver did not
apply the brakes or did not slow the vehicle. Rather, it is

the case of the truck driver that the speed of the car was
slow. A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in K.N.
Nithyananda v. Mysore State Agro Industries Corporation,
by its Managing Director Bangalore and another, AIR 1973

Mysore 314, in context with Regulation 4 (now
Regulation 6), has held that the drivers of automatically
propelled vehicles, when attempting to overtake

vehicles going ahead of them should wait for the proper
opportunity viz., slackness in traffic on the same road

before doing so. They are duty-bound to exercise
sufficient care and caution by looking ahead and behind

to ascertain that it would be safe for them to overtake
such a vehicle. A further duty is cast on them to give a
proper signal to the driver of the vehicle ahead to
indicate that they would be overtaking the vehicle and
wait for a reply signal from the driver permitting them
to overtake and thereby indicating that the road is clear
and there would be no danger in overtaking. The
evidence of RW-1, Amrik Singh, a truck driver, makes it
abundantly clear that he did not at all exercise any
caution while overtaking the Maruti car or while
stopping his vehicle all of a sudden. In these

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS

25 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that
Amrik Singh, a truck driver, was not only rash in the
manner of driving the truck while overtaking the Maruti
car but was also negligent in stopping his vehicle all of a
sudden, thereby causing the accident.”

.

29. A similar view was taken by this Court in State of

H.P. vs Piar Chand 2003 (2) Shim. LC 341, wherein it was

observed:

of
“19. In Raj Kumar v. State of H.P. 1997 (2) Sim. L.C. 161,
learned single Judge of this Court, while dealing with a
similar situation, has held as under: –

rt”13. It goes without saying that the drivers of
automatically propelled vehicles, when attempting

to overtake vehicles going ahead of them, ought to
wait for the proper opportunity. A duty is cast on
them to exercise sufficient care and caution by

looking ahead and behind to ascertain that it would
be safe for them to overtake the vehicle moving
ahead of them. A further duty is cast on them to

give a proper signal to the driver of the vehicle
ahead to indicate that they would be overtaking the

vehicles and wait for a reply signal from that driver
permitting them to overtake and thereby
indicating that the road ahead is clear and there

would be no danger in overtaking. If these
minimum precautions are not observed by drivers
of automatically propelled vehicles, while
overtaking the vehicles going ahead of them, it will
have to be considered that such driving is rash and
negligent.”

20. In the case in hand, the accused, while overtaking
the truck, was required to take the minimum precaution
to have awaited for proper opportunity to overtake the
truck and taking necessary caution to see whether any

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
26 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

vehicle was not coming from the opposite side and to
give a proper signal to the driver of the truck and wait
for a reply signal from the driver of the truck. This has
not been done by the accused and, therefore, he was
negligent in driving the Jeep.”

.

30. In the present case, the accused overtook the

motorcycle on a curve when another vehicle was coming from

the opposite side, contrary to the Rules of the Road

of
Regulations. There is no evidence that the motorcyclist had

signalled the petitioner to overtake him. Therefore, the
rt
petitioner was in breach of the statutory regulations, which led

to the accident. Therefore, he was rightly held guilty of the

commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the

IPC.

31. It is undisputed that motorcyclists Subash Chander

Chandel and Pyare Lal had sustained injuries in the accident.

The accused admitted this fact in his statement recorded under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Dr Deepak (PW-10) also proved that

Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and Pyare Lal (PW-2) had

sustained injuries which could have been caused by an accident.

This was not suggested to be incorrect. Therefore, it was duly

proved on record that Subhash Chander Chandel (PW-1) and

Pyare Lal (PW-2) had sustained injuries in the accident caused

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
27 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

by the negligence of the accused, and he was rightly convicted

of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 337

of the IPC.

.

32. In Manoj Chauhan (supra), the identity of the driver

was not proved. However. In the present case, the accused had

not disputed his identity. Therefore, the judgment of Manoj

of
Chauhan (supra) does not apply to the present case.

33. In Ram Pal (supra), the prosecution had asserted
rt
that the accident occurred due to the high speed of the bus,

which was not held to be sufficient. In the present case, the

accident occurred because of a violation of Rule 6 of the Rules

of the Road Regulations. Therefore, the cited judgment does

not apply to the present case.

34. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the

commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of the

IPC, and for six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹

500/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15

days for the commission of an offence punishable under

Section 337 of the IPC. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
28 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

Court in Dalbir Singh Versus State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82

that a deterrent sentence is to be awarded to a person convicted

of rash or negligent driving. 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

of
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 dis-
eases, so much so the Indian highways are among the
rt
top killers of the country, the saturation of accidents
was not even half of what it is today. So V. R. Krishna

Iyer, J., has suggested in the said decision, thus :

“Rashness and negligence are relative concepts,
not absolute abstractions. In our current condi-

tions, 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 ve-

hicles 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 con-
firmed the said sentence when an accused was convicted
of the offence of driving a bus callously and causing the
death of a human being. In that case, this Court en-
hanced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment 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 at-

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS

29 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

tracting the benevolent provisions of S. 4 of the PO Act.
While considering the quantum of sentence to be im-
posed for the offence of causing death by rash or negli-
gent driving of automobiles, one of the prime consider-
ations 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

of
accident, or even if any accident occurs it need not nec-
essarily 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
rt
be dealt with leniently by the Court. He must always
keep in 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, par-
ticularly at the level of trial Courts, for lessening the

high rate of motor accidents due to the callous driving of
automobiles.”

35. A similar view was taken 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

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
30 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

fully endorse the view expressed by this Court in Dalbir
Singh [(2000) 5 SCC 82: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1208].

36. Similarly, the judgment in State of Punjab v. Saurabh

.

Bakshi, (2015) 5 SCC 182: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 751: 2015 SCC OnLine

SC 278, wherein it was observed at page 196:

“25. Before parting with the case, we are compelled to
observe that India has a disreputable record of road
accidents. There is a nonchalant attitude among the

of
drivers. They feel that they are the “Emperors of all
they survey”. Drunkenness contributes to careless
driving, where other people become their prey. The
poor feel that their lives are not safe, the pedestrians
rt
think of uncertainty, and the civilised persons drive in
constant fear, but are still apprehensive about the

obnoxious attitude of the people who project
themselves as “larger than life”. In such circumstances,
we are bound to observe that the lawmakers should
scrutinise, relook and revisit the sentencing policy in
Section 304-A IPC. We say so with immense anguish.”

37. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the learned

Courts below cannot be said to be excessive.

38. It was submitted that the benefit of the Probation of

Offenders Act should have been granted to the accused.

However, it is not permissible because of the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalbir (supra). This Court is bound

by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is unable to

follow the judgments of this Court in Lekh Raj (supra) and in

Pawan Kumar (supra). The Judgment of the Supreme Court in

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS
31 ( 2026:HHC:6364 )

Chellammal (supra) dealt with the commission of offences

punishable under Sections 304-B and 498A of the IPC and not

with the commission of offences punishable under Sections

.

279 and 337 of the IPC. Hence, the cited judgment does not

apply to the present case.

39. No other point was urged.

of

40. In view of above, the present revision petition fails,

and it is dismissed and so are the pending applications, if any.

rt

41. Records be sent back forthwith.

(Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge
10 March, 2026.

(jai)

::: Downloaded on – 10/03/2026 20:34:04 :::CIS