The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with the conviction of a driver held responsible for a fatal road accident that occurred nearly two decades ago near Banikhet in Chamba district. Dismissing the criminal revision petition, the court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to re-examine evidence when lower courts have returned concurrent findings of guilt.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on 22 May 2006, when a Scorpio vehicle allegedly driven at high speed struck a pedestrian, Sadiq Ali, near the Banikhet helipad. The victim, who was walking along with others while herding cattle, suffered a severe head injury and later died.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Flags Delay in Murder Trial, Seeks Change of Public Prosecutor in Long-Pending Bail Case
Police registered a case under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving causing death, along with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for dangerous driving and fleeing the accident scene.
In March 2013, the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dalhousie convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year’s simple imprisonment for causing death by negligence, along with additional sentences for traffic violations. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court in appeal in March 2014.
Challenging these findings, the accused approached the High Court in revision, arguing that the prosecution had failed to conclusively prove the involvement of his vehicle. It was contended that key witnesses had either turned hostile or failed to identify the vehicle, and that no independent eyewitness was examined.
The State, however, opposed the plea, pointing out that the vehicle’s registration number was recorded promptly, the accused himself admitted to driving the vehicle, and the damaged front glass of the Scorpio was discovered soon after the accident.
Court’s Observations
Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that the scope of criminal revision is narrow and does not permit reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible.
“The revisional court is meant to correct a patent defect or legal error, not to act as a second appellate court,” the bench observed, relying on settled Supreme Court precedents.
The court found that the informant’s statement mentioning the registration number of the vehicle remained unchallenged during cross-examination. It also noted that the accused had admitted being intercepted at the Tunuhatti barrier shortly after the accident.
Significantly, the court held that driving through a crowded road with pedestrians and cattle requires heightened caution. “High speed is a relative term,” the judge remarked, explaining that even moderate speed may amount to negligence in congested conditions.
The court also took note of the fact that the accused fled the spot and failed to assist the injured, which attracted liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision
Concluding that the findings of the trial court and appellate court were based on proper appreciation of evidence, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition.
The bench held that the sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment for causing death by negligence could not be termed excessive, especially where a human life had been lost. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Param Jeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 178 of 2014
Decision Date: 21 November 2025
