State of Hp Vs Sanjay Kumar

¶1

2026:HHC:7149

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Appeal No. 163 of 2014 Reserved on: 28.02.2026 Date of Decision: 16.03.2026

¶4

State of H.P. ...Appellant Versus Sanjay Kumar ...Respondent

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Appellant : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr Naresh Kaul, Advocate.

¶6

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶7

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.08.2013, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

2026:HHC:7149

¶12

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC. It was asserted that Punjab Singh (PW4) was a driver of the truck bearing registration No. HP-68-2292. Dinesh Kumar was a conductor in the truck. Informant Punjab Singh and Dinesh Kumar were coming from Mamun to McLeod Ganj in the truck. They reached Khajjian Bazaar at about 1:45 PM. A bus came from the opposite side. A motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-22-2392 was moving behind the bus at a high speed. The motorcyclists overtook the bus and hit the truck. The motorcyclist revealed his name as Sanjay Kumar. Sanjay Kumar and the pillion rider sustained injuries in the incident. The accident occurred because of the negligence of the motorcyclist. The injured were taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police. An entry (Ext.PW7/A) was recorded in the Police Station. HC Subhash Chand (PW12) and Constable Vijay Kumar were sent to verify the correctness of the information. HC Subhash Chand (PW12) filed an application (Ext.PW12/A) for seeking the opinion of the Medical Officer regarding the fitness of the injured to make the

¶13

3

¶14

2026:HHC:7149

¶15

statements. The Medical Officer declared that the injured were not fit to make the statements. ASI Subhash Chand (PW12) went to the spot and recorded the statement of Punjab Singh (Ext.PW4/A) and sent it to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW8/A) was registered. Subhash Chand investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW12/B). He seized the truck bearing registration No. HP68-2292 and motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-22-2392 vide Memos (Ext. PW-1/A and Ext.PW5/A). Dr Shiv Darshan Singh (PW3) examined the injured Sanjay Kumar and Vinod Kumar and found that they had sustained grievous injuries which could have been caused within 2 hours of the examination. He issued the MLCs (Ext.PW3/A and Ext.PW3/B). Vinod Kumar succumbed to his injuries. An inquest on the dead body was conducted, and a report (Ext.PW12/C) was prepared. Dr B.M. Gupta (PW9) conducted the post-mortem examination and issued the report (Ext.PW9/A). According to his opinion, the cause of death was head injury, multiple fractures and a fracture of the right femur. HHC Narender Sood (PW10) examined the motorcycle and found that the motorcycle had no defect that could have led to the accident. He issued the report (Ext.PW10/A). The photographs of the spot (Ext.PW1 to Ext. P3 and Ext.P7 and Ext.P8) were taken.

¶16

4

¶17

2026:HHC:7149

¶18

The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

¶19

Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶20

The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. Jai Ram Sharma (PW1) is the owner of the truck. Rajinder Soga (PW2) took the photographs. Shivdarshan Singh (PW3) examined the injured. Panjab Singh (PW4) was the driver of the truck and an eyewitness. Shankar Dass (PW5) and Jeewan Kumar (PW6) are the eyewitnesses. HHC Ashwani Kumar (PW7) proved the entry in the daily dairy. HC Ramesh Chand (PW8) proved the FIR. Dr B.M. Gupta (PW9) conducted the post-mortem examination. HHC Narender Sood (PW10) examined the motorcycle. Rakesh Kumar (PW11) witnessed the recovery. ASI Subhash (PW12) investigated the matter.

¶21

The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its entirety. He

¶22

5

¶23

2026:HHC:7149

¶24

claimed that he was innocent. However, he did not produce any evidence in his defence.

¶25

Learned Trial Court held that the photograph (Ext.P1) showed insufficient space for the bus to cross. The photographs also showed that there was no space towards the right side of the road. The skid marks were shown beneath the tyres of the truck, and the truck had skidded for about 15 feet. This showed that the truck driver was driving the truck at a high speed and towards the right side of the road. Hence, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver, and the motorcyclist was not at fault. Therefore, 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 erred in acquitting the accused. The prosecution witnesses consistently stated that the motorcyclist had overtaken the bus, which led to the accident. The pillion rider had died in the accident, and learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The truck driver had applied the brakes after seeing the motorcycle overtaking the bus, which led to the skid marks. These skid marks should not have been used against the truck driver. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal

¶27

6

¶28

2026:HHC:7149

¶29

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 Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

¶31

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The prosecution witnesses had consistently stated that the accused was overtaking the bus, which led to the accident. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that the truck driver was at fault. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

¶32

Mr Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the site plan mentions the skid marks for a distance of about 15 feet, and shows the truck towards the right side of the road. The learned Trial Court had rightly held that the truck driver was negligent in driving the truck at a high speed towards the right side of the road. The police had wrongly filed the charge sheet against the accused, and the learned Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused. Learned

¶33

7

¶34

2026:HHC:7149

¶35

Trial Court had taken a reasonable view, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding the appeal against acquittal. 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) 5 SCC 433: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading of evidence, omission to consider the material evidence and no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. It was observed at page 438:

¶38

“24. 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.”

¶39

8

¶40

2026:HHC:7149

¶41

13. This position was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Ramveer

¶42

Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1743, wherein it was observed:

¶43

“21. We may note that the present appeal is one against acquittal. Law is well-settled by a plethora of judgments of this Court that, in an appeal against acquittal, unless the finding of acquittal is perverse on the face of the record and the only possible view based on the evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused, only in such an event, should the appellate Court interfere with a judgment of acquittal. Where two views are possible, i.e., one consistent with the acquittal and the other holding the accused guilty, the appellate Court should refuse to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149 ; H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 , and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471 .”

¶44

The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶45

Panjab Singh (PW4), Shankar Dass (PW5) and Jeewan Kumar (PW6) consistently stated that the motorcycle was moving behind the HRTC bus. The motorcyclists tried to overtake the bus and hit the truck on the wrong side of the road.

¶46

Their testimonies are not corroborated by the photographs. The photographs (Ext.P1, Ext.P2 and Ext.P3) show that the right side of the tyre of the truck has crossed the middle line of the road. The motorcyclist was crushed under the right tyre. Therefore, the position of the vehicle had not changed after

¶47

9

¶48

2026:HHC:7149

¶49

the accident. Learned Trial Court had rightly observed that there was insufficient space towards the right side of the truck, while sufficient space was available towards the left side of the truck, and the truck was being driven towards the right side of the road.

¶50

The Central Government has framed the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, to regulate the movement of traffic. Rule 2 provides that the driver of a vehicle shall drive the vehicle as close to the left side of the road as may be expedient and shall allow all the traffic which is proceeding in the opposite direction to pass on his right side. It was laid down in Fagu Moharana vs. State, AIR 1961 Orissa 71, that driving the vehicle on the right side of the road amounts to negligence. It was observed:

¶51

“The car was on the left side of the road, leaving a space of nearly 10 feet on its right side. The bus, however, was on the right side of the road, leaving a gap of nearly 10 feet on its left side. There is thus no doubt that the car was coming on the proper side, whereas the bus was coming from the opposite direction on the wrong side. The width of the bus is only 7 feet 6 inches, and as there was a space of more than 10 feet on the left side, the bus could easily have avoided the accident if it had travelled on the left side of the road.”

¶52

Similarly, it was held in State of H.P. Vs. Dinesh Kumar 2008 H.L.J. 399 , that where the vehicle was taken towards the right side of the road, the driver was negligent. It was observed:

¶53

10

¶54

2026:HHC:7149

¶55

“The spot map Ext. P.W. 10/A would show that at point 'A on the right side of the road, there were blood stain marks and a V-shape slipper of deceased Anu. Point 'E' is the place where P.W. 1 Chuni Lal was standing at the time of the accident, and point 'G' is the place where P.W. 3 Anil Kumar was standing. The jeep was going from Hamirpur to Nadaun. The point 'A' in the spot map Ext. P.W. 10/A is almost on the extreme right side of the road.”

¶56

This position was reiterated in State of H.P. vs. Niti Raj

¶57

2009 Cr.L.J. 1922, and it was held:

¶58

“16. The evidence in the present case has to be examined in light of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court. In the present case, some factors stand out clearly. The width of the pucca portion of the road was 10 ft. 6 inches. On the left side, while going from Dangri to Kangoo, there was a 7 ft. kacha portion, and on the other side, there was an 11 ft. kacha portion. The total width of the road was about 28 ft. The injured person was coming from the Dangri side and was walking on the left side of the road. This has been stated both by the injured as well as by PW-6. This fact is also apparent from the fact that after he was hit, the injured person fell into the drain. A drain is always on the edge of the road. The learned Sessions Judge held, and it has also been argued before me, that nobody has stated that the motorcycle was on the wrong side. This fact is apparent from the statement of the witnesses, who state that they were on the extreme left side, and the motorcycle, which was coming from the opposite side, hit them. It does not need a genius to conclude that the motorcycle was on the extreme right side of the road and therefore on the wrong side.”

¶59

The truck driver had breached the rules of the road regulation, which led to the accident and learned Trial Court had rightly held it to be so.

¶60

11

¶61

2026:HHC:7149

¶62

It was specifically stated by the eyewitnesses that the motorcycle was moving behind the HRTC Bus. The motorcyclist overtook the HRTC Bus and hit the truck. Learned Trial Court had rightly doubted this version because no HRTC bus was found parked on the road. The truck is shown in the photographs in an oblique position covering almost the whole of the road, leaving no space for the vehicles to move. Had the prosecution's version been true, the bus would have been present on the spot, and the absence of the bus would make their version doubtful that the motorcycle was moving behind the bus, and the motorcyclist tried to overtake it.

¶63

Punjab Singh stated in his cross-examination that the bus was crossing the truck. Had the bus been crossing the truck, there would have been no question for the motorcyclists to overtake the bus. Further, the position of the vehicle would have been different, and the truck would have been on the right side of the road. Thus, the statement of Punjab Singh in the crossexamination that the bus was crossing the truck will make the prosecution's case suspect.

¶64

Shankar Dass (PW5) stated in his cross-examination that the accident had not occurred towards his shop but on the

¶65

12

¶66

2026:HHC:7149

¶67

other side. He came to know about the accident after he had heard some noise. Therefore, he had seen the incident after it was over. Hence, his testimony that the motorcyclist was trying to overtake the bus, which led to the accident, cannot be believed. Jeewan Kumar (PW6) admitted in his cross-examination that he had reached the spot after hearing a noise alongwith Raj Kumar and Shankar Dass, which means that he had not seen the accident. The accident occurred because of the negligence of the truck driver. His statement that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the truck driver is contrary to the prosecution's case that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the motorcyclists.

¶68

There is no other evidence to prove the negligence of the accused. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible.

¶69

In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶70

13

¶71

2026:HHC:7149

¶72

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondent/accused is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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.

¶73

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

¶74

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16^th March, 2026 (Nikita)

State of Hp v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashu Vs State of Hp

Vishal Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Salman Vs State of Hp

State Vs Ramesh Chand Anr.

Mohit Sharma Vs State of Hp