The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Friday dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of a bus driver booked for a 2007 road accident in Kangra district, holding that the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent driving. The court made it clear that speed alone, without supporting evidence, cannot fix criminal liability in accident cases.
Background
The case arose from a June 9, 2007 accident in which a private bus bearing registration number HP-39A-4635 hit a parapet and rolled off the road, injuring several passengers. Police registered an FIR under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the accident occurred due to the driver’s negligence and high speed.
In March 2012, a Judicial Magistrate at Kangra acquitted the accused, pointing to gaps in the prosecution story. Unhappy with that outcome, the State approached the High Court, arguing that eyewitness testimony and the circumstances of the crash clearly pointed to rash driving.
Court’s Observations
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, after hearing both sides, noted that one of the key prosecution witnesses, the original informant, did not support the case at trial. Another injured passenger did speak of the bus being driven “at high speed”, but the court found this description too vague.
“The use of the term ‘high speed’ by itself proves nothing,” the bench observed, recalling earlier Supreme Court rulings. It stressed that unless witnesses explain what they actually mean by high speed, such statements remain subjective and unreliable.
Crucially, the court relied on the testimony of the mechanical expert, who admitted during cross-examination that a leakage in the brake pressure pipe could have caused the accident. This, the judge said, offered a plausible explanation unrelated to the driver’s conduct.
The State had invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur-that the accident speaks for itself-but the court rejected this argument. “This principle only shifts the burden of explanation. Once a mechanical defect is shown, it cannot be used to presume guilt,” the bench remarked.
Decision
Finding no perversity or serious error in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court refused to interfere with the acquittal. “The learned trial court has taken a reasonable view based on the evidence on record,” Justice Kainthla concluded, dismissing the State’s appeal and confirming the driver’s acquittal.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Pradeep Kumar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 2012
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal)
Decision Date: 20 December 2025
