Yudhvir Singh v. State of H.P

(PW1) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW6/A) was registered. HC Chain Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. He obtained the treatment summary (Ext.P1) and other documents (Ext.P2 to Ext.P6). He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/D). He seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP -38A-8856 and PB-35K-4329 vide memos (Ext.PW3/B and Ext. PW3/A). Sandeep Sharma (PW4) took the photographs (Ext.PW4/A1 to Ext.PW4/A3) whose negatives are Ext.PW4/A4 to Ext.PW4/A6. Narinder Sood (PW2) examined the vehicles and found that there was no mechanical defect in them that could have led to the accident. He issued the reports (Ext.PW2/A and Ext.PW2/B). HC Chain Singh (PW8) recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient 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 of the IPC and 4 Section 184 of the MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Devinder Singh (PW1) is the injured/informant. Narinder Sood (PW2) examined the vehicles. Pawan Kumar (PW3) is an eyewitness. Sandeep Sharma (PW4) and Vinay Kumar (PW5) witnessed various recoveries. Chatter Singh (PW6) signed the FIR. Ajay Singh (PW7) proved that the accused was the driver of the vehicle. Chain Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. Ashok Kumar (PW9) proved the entries in the daily diary.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., admitted that he was employed as a driver by Ajay Kumar in the vehicle bearing registration number HP-38A-

8856. He claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the informant because he was not looking forward while riding his motorcycle. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. The learned Trial Court held that the informant’s statement was contradictory and could not be relied upon. The 5 informant was interested in the success of his case, and he wanted to save himself from criminal liability. Statement of Pawan Kumar (PW3) showed that the accident occurred due to the informant’s negligence because he was looking towards the factory, and hit the Mahindra Bolero. Ram Swaroop was present on the spot but was not examined by the prosecution without any reason. The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC and Section 184 of the MV Act.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The learned Trial Court discarded the statements of prosecution witnesses without any cogent reasons. The informant and Pawan Kumar (PW3) supported the prosecution's case. The minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses were not sufficient to discard them. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 6

8. I have heard Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and Mr Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

9. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. It was duly proved by the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the site plan, and the photographs that the accused was driving the vehicle on the wrong side of the road, which was the proximate cause of the accident. Learned Trial Court relied upon minor contradictions in the statement of the informant and Pawan Kumar, which were bound to come with the passage of time and could not have been used for discarding the prosecution's case. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

10. Mr Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused. Pawan Kumar (PW3) admitted in his cross-examination that the informant was looking towards the factory, which led to the 7 accident. This admission shows the informant’s negligence, and the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.

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

12. 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 on page 438: “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 8 consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

13. This position was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1743, wherein it was observed:

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 Rudragoudarv. 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.

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

15. The informant Devinder Singh (PW1) stated that he was going to his home on his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-35K-4329 on 09.12.2008. He reached the Sunny Slipper factory at about 5:45 PM, when a vehicle bearing registration 9 No. HP-38A-8856 came from the opposite side at high speed and hit the motorcycle on the wrong side. The motorcycle fell. The driver of the vehicle fled from the spot. He stated in his cross-examination that he had left the office at about 5 PM. The place of accident was located at a distance of 8-10 kms from the place of accident. There was a slight curve before the place of the accident. Ram Swaroop was working in the Sunny factory. He denied that he was looking towards the gate of the factory and drove towards the wrong side of the road. He denied that the accused tried to save him, which led to the accident.

16. The cross-examination of this witness shows that the accused has not disputed the accident. It was suggested to him that he had driven the motorcycle towards the wrong side of the road, and he denied the suggestion. A denied suggestion does not amount to any proof and cannot be used for discarding the prosecution's case. The site plan (Ext.PW8/D) shows the place of the accident. The width of the road is shown to be eight feet. The motorcycle was going from Indora towards Mohtli and was on the left side of the road. The pickup was coming from Mohtli towards Indora and is shown to be towards its right side. The photographs (Ext.PW4/A-1 to Ext.PW4/A-3) also show that 10 the motorcycle is towards the left side of the road, whereas Mahindra Bolero is towards the right side of the road. Hence, the photographs and the site plan corroborate the informant’s version that the accident had occurred towards the right side of the road for the Mahindra Bolero.

17. Pawan Kumar (PW3) stated that he was posted in the Sunny Slipper factory and was discharging his duty on

09.12.2008. A pickup vehicle came from Mohtli and hit a motorcycle coming from Indora at about 5:40- 5:45 PM. The accident occurred due to the high speed of the driver of the pickup and driving the pickup towards the wrong side of the road. He stated in his cross-examination that there was a slight curve at the place of the accident. He admitted that Ram Swaroop used to ride the motorcycle with the informant. The motorcyclist was looking towards the factory and hit the jeep. This led to the accident, and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the pickup.

18. Learned Trial Court was swayed by the admission made by this witness in the cross-examination that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the pickup. This 11 statement was inadmissible and could not have been used for acquitting the accused. A witness can only depose about the fact which had occurred in his presence, and he is not permitted to draw inferences from the facts. The inferences have to be drawn by the Jury or the Judge when he is sitting without a Jury. It was laid down by Goddard LJ in Hollington v. Hawthorn 1943 KB 507 that a witness cannot depose about negligence. It was observed at 595: “It frequently happens that a bystander has a full and complete view of an accident. It is beyond question that while he may inform the court of everything he saw, he may not express any opinion on whether either or both of the parties were negligent. The reason commonly assigned is that this is the precise question the court has to decide, but in truth, it is because his opinion is not relevant. Any fact that he can prove is relevant, but his opinion is not.”

19. Similar is the judgment in State of H.P. vs. Niti Raj 2009 Cr.L.J. 1922 (HP), where it was held: “It is not necessary for a witness to say that the driver of an offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly. The issue whether the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner is a conclusion to be drawn on the basis of evidence led before the Court.”

20. Therefore, no advantage can be derived from the statement made by this witness that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the motorcyclist. 12

21. It was submitted that the accident would not have occurred had the informant not looked towards the factory. This submission is only stated to be rejected. The site plan, the statements of the witnesses, and the photographs clearly show that the Mahindra Bolero was being driven towards the right side of the road. Therefore, the proximate cause of the accident was driving the Mahindra Bolero towards the right side of the road and not the informant looking towards the factory. Had the Mahindra Bolero been driven towards the left side of the road, the accident would not have occurred even if the informant was looking towards the factory.

22. 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: “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 13 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.”

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

24. This position was reiterated in State of H.P. vs. Niti Raj 2009 Cr.L.J. 1922, and it was held: “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 and 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 14 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.”

25. In the present case, the accused was driving the Mahindra Bolero towards the wrong side of the road in breach of the rules of the regulation framed by the Central Government, and he was clearly negligent.

26. The learned Trial Court held that Ram Swaroop was present, but he was not examined, and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. This conclusion cannot be accepted. The question of adverse inference only arises when the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the case of the party2. In the present case, the prosecution's case is proved by the statements of the informant and Pawan Kumar (PW3) as well as the photographs and the site plan. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not examining Ram Swaroop.