State Vs Pardeep Kumar

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.3.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, Court No.1, District Kangra, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the notice of accusation for which he was being tried. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶12

2

¶13

2025:HHC:44777

¶14

same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

¶15

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the police received a telephonic information on 9.6.2007 at 1:30 PM from Manoj Kumar Patial (PW1) that a bus bearing registration No. HP-39A-4635 fell off the road after hitting the parapet. 15-20 passengers sustained injuries in the accident. The accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver and the high speed of the bus. The police recorded an entry (Ex.PW5/A). An FIR (Ex.PW8/A) was registered in the Police Station based on the information. SI Des Raj (PW9) went to the spot to verify the correctness of the information. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW9/A). He filed an application (Ex.PW9/B) for the medical examination of the victims. Dr. Rubi Bhardwaj (not examined) medically examined the injured and issued MLCs (Ex.PA to Ex.PR). SI Des Raj (PW9) seized the bus along with documents vide memo (Ex.PW7/A). He took the photographs (Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/G). HC Rajinder Kumar

¶16

3

¶17

2025:HHC:44777

¶18

(PW4) mechanically examined the bus and issued the report (Ex.PW4/A). The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

¶19

The learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶20

The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Manoj Kumar (PW1) is the informant, who did not support the prosecution's case. Sandla Devi (PW2) is an eyewitness. Pawan Kumar (PW3) is the owner of the bus. HC Rajinder (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the bus. Constable Bishan Dass (PW5) recorded the entry in the daily diary. Gopal Dass (PW6) took the photographs. Harish Kumar (PW7) witnessed the recovery. Ramesh Kumar (PW8) signed the FIR. Des Raj (PW9) investigated the matter.

¶21

4

¶22

2025:HHC:44777

¶23

The accused, in his statement recorded under Section

¶24

313 of Cr.P.C., claimed that he was innocent, and witnesses deposed falsely against him. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

¶25

Learned Trial Court held that Manoj Kumar did not support the prosecution's case. Sandla Devi (PW2) stated in her cross-examination that the bus was stopped and the passengers were getting down from it. The report of the mechanical expert proved that the bus had a mechanical defect that could have led to the accident. The prosecution had failed to prove the rashness or negligence of the accused. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

¶26

Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court discarded the testimonies of the witnesses without any reason. The mechanic had issued the report (Ex.PW4/A) stating that the bus had no mechanical defect that could have led to the accident. This report was ignored by the learned Trial Court. Sandla Devi also proved that the bus was being driven at a high speed; it hit the parapet and

¶27

5

¶28

2025:HHC:44777

¶29

fell off the road; hence, the principle of res ipsa loquitor will apply. Learned Trial Court erred in ignoring this part of her testimony. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside.

¶30

I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr Ajay Kumar Sood, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Kuldeep Chandel, Advocate, for the respondent/accused.

¶31

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the material on record. The testimony of Sandla Devi proved that the bus was being driven at a high speed, and it fell off the road; hence, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to the present case. Mechanic HC Rajinder Kumar (PW4) had specifically mentioned in his report (Ex.PW4/A) that the bus had no mechanical defect which could have led to the accident, and learned Trial Court erred in holding that the accident was caused by the mechanical defect. Hence, he

¶32

6

¶33

2025:HHC:44777

¶34

prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside.

¶35

Mr Ajay Kumar Sood, learned Senior Counsel, for the respondent/accused, submitted that HC Rajinder Kumar (PW4) specifically admitted in the cross-examination that the accident could have taken place due to the leakage of the pressure pipe. Hence, the report submitted by him loses its significance. The Learned Trial Court had rightly accepted the statement of HC Rajinder Kumar. This was a reasonable view which could have been taken based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

¶36

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶37

The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/

¶38

7

¶39

2025:HHC:44777

¶40

omission to consider the material evidence and reached at a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440:

¶41

“12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.”

¶42

This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of

¶43

A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed

¶44

“12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia , Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104 , Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258 , Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of

¶45

8

¶46

2025:HHC:44777

¶47

Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 , and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114 .”

¶48

The present appeal has to be decided as per the

¶49

parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶50

Manoj Kumar (PW1) did not support the prosecution's case. He stated that no accident had taken place in his presence and he had not made any report to the police. He was permitted to be cross-examined, and he denied that the accident had occurred because of the high speed of the bus. He denied that he was trying to help the accused. It is apparent from his statement that he has not supported the prosecution's case, and no advantage can be derived from his testimony.

¶51

Sandla Devi (PW2) stated that Prem Bus came from Palampur at a high speed. It hit the parapet and fell off the road. She sustained injuries in the incident. The accident had occurred due to the high speed of the bus. She stated in her cross-examination that one Prem Bus was already parked on the road, and the passengers were getting off the bus. She was not aware that the brakes of the bus had developed a defect.

¶52

9

¶53

2025:HHC:44777

¶54

HC Rajinder Kumar (PW4) conducted the mechanical examination of the bus and issued the report (Ex.PW4/A) mentioning that the main pipe of the brake system (pressure brake pipe) was leaking. He explained in his cross-examination that the leakage of the main pressure pipe led to the accident. The testimony of this witness establishes that the cause of the accident was a mechanical defect in the vehicle, which falsifies the prosecution's case that the accident occurred due to the high speed of the bus or the negligence of the accused.

¶55

It was submitted that the bus had fallen off the road, and the principle of res ipsa loquitor will apply. This submission will not help the prosecution. The principle of res ipsa loquitor will only shift the burden to the accused to explain the circumstances leading to the accident. The statement of HC Rajinder Kumar (PW-4) explains that the accident occurred because of a mechanical defect. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor.

¶56

10

¶57

2025:HHC:44777

¶58

It was submitted that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed, which led to the accident. This submission will not help the prosecution. Sandla Devi made a generalised statement that the bus was being driven at a high speed, but she did not mention the approximate speed of the vehicle. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanta Lal vs. State of West

¶59

Bengal 1968 ACJ 124 that the use of the term ‘high speed’ by a witness amounts to nothing unless it is elicited from the witness what is understood by the term 'high speed'. It was observed:

¶60

“Further, no attempt was made to find out what this witness understood by high speed. To one man, the speed of even 10 or 20 miles per hour may appear to be high, while to another, even a speed of 25 or 30 miles per hour may appear to be a reasonable speed. On the evidence in this case, therefore, it could not be held that the appellant was driving the bus at a speed which would justify holding that he was driving the bus rashly and negligently. The evidence of the two conductors indicates that he tried to stop the bus by applying the brakes; yet, Gopinath Dey was struck by the bus, though not from the front side of the bus, as he did not fall in front of the bus but fell sideways near the corner of the two roads. It is quite possible that he carelessly tried to run across the road, dashed into the bus and was thrown back by the moving bus, with the result that he received the injuries that resulted in his death.”

¶61

This position was reiterated in State of Karnataka vs.

¶62

Satish 1998 (8) SCC 493, wherein it was held:

¶63

11

¶64

2025:HHC:44777

¶65

“Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution, and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject, of course, to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur.”

¶66

This Court also held in State of H.P. Vs. Madan Lal

¶67

2003 Latest H.L.J. (2) 925 that speed alone is not a criterion for

¶68

judging rashness or negligence. It was observed: -

¶69

“It may be pointed out that speed alone is not a criterion to decide rashness or negligence on the part of a driver. The deciding factor, however, is the situation in which the accident occurs.”

¶70

This position was reiterated in State of H.P. Vs. Parmodh Singh 2008 Latest HLJ (2) 1360 wherein it was held: -

¶71

“Thus, negligent or rash driving of the vehicle has to be proved by the prosecution during the trial, which cannot be automatically presumed even on the basis of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed or slow speed does not lead to an inference

¶72

12

¶73

2025:HHC:44777

¶74

that negligent or rash driving had caused the accident resulting in injuries to the complainant. In fact, speed is no criterion to establish the fact of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle. It is only a rash and negligent act as its ingredients, to which the prosecution has failed to prove in the instant case.”

¶75

Thus, the accused cannot be held liable merely

¶76

because Sandla Devi has stated that he (accused) was driving the vehicle at a high speed.

¶77

There is no other evidence of the rashness or negligence of the accused. Thus, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view which could have been taken based upon the evidence led before the learned Trial Court, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible or it would have taken a different view while deciding the matter on the original side.

¶78

No other point was urged.

¶79

In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is

¶80

dismissed.

¶81

Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya

¶82

13

¶83

2025:HHC:44777

¶84

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the respondent/ accused is directed to furnish personal bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶85

A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith.

¶86

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶87

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 20^th December, 2025 (Chander)

State v. Pardeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Pardeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Kumar Gupta Vs M/s Lakshmi Fruit Co.

Pyar singh Vs Meena Kumari

Bal Krishan Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Gaurav Vashist

Hem Chand Vs Hp State C-Op. Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Chet Ram Vs State of Hp