2026:HHC:34448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 59 of 2014

Reserved on: 07.08.2026

Date of Decision: 14.08.2026

Madan Lal ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

No.

For the petitioner : Ms Sheetal Vyas, Advocate.

For the Respondent /

State

: Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy

Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present revision is directed against the

judgment dated 04.01.2014, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned

Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 25.03.2013, passed by learned Chief

1

. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2

2026:HHC:34448

Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, at Dharamshala, District Kangra,

H.P. were upheld (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in

the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial

Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

revision are that the police presented a challan against the

accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of

offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant

Pritam Singh (PW-1) and his brother Mahal Singh (since

deceased) were riding the scooter bearing registration No.

HP36-5001 on 07.02.2007. They reached 45 miles at about

10:00 a.m. One bus was parked on the road; the passengers

were boarding the bus. The informant stopped the scooter at a

distance of 3-4 metres from the bus because another bus was

coming from Rajhol. An Alto car bearing registration No. HP-

22A-0947 hit the scooter from the rear. The scooter fell. The

informant and Mahal Singh sustained injuries. The driver of

the Alto car revealed his name as Madan Lal. The injured were

taken to the hospital. An intimation was given to the police,

and entry (Ext.PW-7/A) was recorded in the Police Station.

3

2026:HHC:34448

Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW-13) went to the hospital for

verification of the information. He recorded the informant's

statement (Ext.PW-1/A) and sent it to the Police Station,

where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-9/A) was registered. Inspector Mohinder

Singh (PW-13) conducted the inquest on the dead body and

prepared the report (Ext.PW-13/A). Dr Chanderdeep Sharma

(PW-12) conducted the post-mortem examination of Mahal

Singh and found that the cause of death was coma due to head

injury. He issued the report (Ext. PW-12/A). The photographs

of the dead body (Ext.PW-10/H and Ext.PW-10/G) were taken.

Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW -13) went to the spot and

prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-13/A). The photographs of the

car and scooter (Ext.PW-10/A to Ext.PW-10/H), whose

negatives are (Ext.PW10/H to PW -10/Q), were taken.

Inspector Mohinder Singh seized the scooter bearing the

registration No.HP36-5001 along with the documents vide

memo (Ext.PW-1/B). He also seized the Maruti car along with

documents vide memo (Ext.PW -3/B). HHC Inderjeet (PW-4)

mechanically examined the Alto car and the scooter and did

not find any defect in them that could have led to the accident.

He issued the report (Ext.PW-4/A). Inspector Mohinder Singh

4

2026:HHC:34448

recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version, and

after the completion of investigation, the c hallan was

prepared and presented before the learned trial Court.

3. The 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 304-A of IPC, to

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove

its case. Pritam Singh (PW-1) is the informant. Iqbal Singh

(PW-2) is the witness to the recovery. Bidhi Chand (PW-3),

Rajinder Singh (PW-6) and Surya Kant (PW-14) did not

support the prosecution case. HHC Inderjeet (PW -4)

mechanically examined the vehicles. Ramesh Chand (PW-5)

carried the injured to the hospital. HC Lata Devi (PW-7) and

Ashok Kumar (PW-8) proved the entries in the daily diary. ASI

Onkar Chand (PW -9) signed the F.I.R. Satish Pathania

(PW-10) took the photographs. Mohinder Singh (PW -11)

witnessed the recovery. Dr Chanderdeep Sharma (PW -12)

conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased.

Inspector Mohinder Singh (PW13) investigated the matter.

5

2026:HHC:34448

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC),

admitted that he was driving the vehicle bearing registration

No. Hp22A-0947, which was owned by Surya Kant. He

admitted that the informant and his brother had sustained

injuries and that they were taken to the hospital. He admitted

that his vehicle was mechanically examined and photographs

of the vehicle were taken. He stated that the informant's

scooter had skidded, which led to the accident. A false case

was made against the accused by the informant to save

himself. He was driving the car at a speed of 20-25 km per

hour. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. The learned trial Court held that the informant's

testimony that he had parked the scooter and the Alto car had

hit the scooter from the rear was acceptable. The plea taken by

the accused that the informant lost control of the scooter and

the scooter fell was not established by the cross-examination

of the witnesses. The negligence of the accused led to the

death of Mahal Singh. Hence, the learned trial Court convicted

the accused of the commission of offences punishable under

Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC and sentenced him as under: -

6

2026:HHC:34448

U/s Sentence Fine In default

279 of IPC Simple

imprisonment

for six

months

500/- S.I. for 15 days

337 of IPC Simple

imprisonment

for six

months

500/ S.I. for 15 days

304-A IPC Simple

imprisonment

for one year.

2000/ S.I. for three

months.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to

run concurrently.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed

by the learned trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which

was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,

Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The

learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded

by the learned trial Court that the accused was driving the car

at the time of the accident. The car had hit the scooter from

the rear. The road was wide, and the accused should have been

careful while driving the car to avoid any accident. He failed to

do so, which amounted to negligence. The learned trial Court

had imposed an adequate sentence , and no interference is

7

2026:HHC:34448

required with the judgment and order passed by the learned

trial Court. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment s and order

passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the

present revision, asserting that the learned Courts below

erred in appreciating the material on record. The defence

taken by the accused that the road was slippery and the

scooter had skidded by itself was highly probable. The

prosecution has failed to prove any rashness or negligence of

the accused. Learned Courts below erred in relying upon the

prosecution's version. The sentence imposed by the learned

trial Court was excessive, and the benefit of the Probation of

Offenders Act should have been granted to the accused. Hence,

it was prayed that the present revision be allowed and the

judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be

set aside.

9. I have heard Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate

General, for the respondent/State.

10. Ms Sheetal Vyas, learned counsel for the

petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Courts below

8

2026:HHC:34448

proceeded on the basis that the accused was negligent because

an accident had taken place. No person has deposed about the

precise negligence of the accused. The mechanical report does

not show any dent on the car or damage to the rear of the

scooter, which makes the prosecution case suspect that the

accident had occurred because the car had hit the scooter from

the rear. Therefore, she prayed that the present revision be

allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned

Courts below be set aside.

11. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General

for the respondent/State, admitted that both the learned

Courts below have concurrently held that the car had hit the

scooter from the rear. The accused was driving the car, and he

was supposed to keep a safe distance from the scooter. The

failure to keep a safe distance led to the accident, and learned

Courts below had rightly held him guilty of driving the car in a

rash and negligent manner. This Court should not interfere

with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by learned

Courts below while deciding the revision; hence he prayed

that the present revision be dismissed.

9

2026:HHC:34448

12. I have given considerable thought to the

submissions made at the bar and have gone through the

records carefully.

13. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485 that a

revisional court does not act as an appellate court and it can

only determine the correctness, legality and propriety of the

findings, sentence and order recorded by the lower court. It

was observed: -

“7. Before parting, we would like to accentuate upon

the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts and the

contours and inherent limits while exercising powers

as a revisional authority. Section 397 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (now, Section 438 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) encapsulates the

power of High Courts and Sessions Courts to examine

the correctness, legality or propriety of any order

passed by an inferior criminal court. The said Section is

extracted as hereunder:

“438. Calling for records to exercise powers of

revision.—(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge

may call for and examine the record of any

proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court

situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the

purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the

correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,

sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the

regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court,

and may, when calling, for such record, direct that

the execution of any sentence or order be

10

2026:HHC:34448

suspended, and if the accused is in confinement

that he be released on his own bond or bail bond

pending the examination of the record.

Explanation. —All Magistrates, whether

Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising

original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to

be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of

this subsection and of section 439.

(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-

section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any

interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry,

trial or other proceeding.

(3) If an application under this section has been

made by any person either to the High Court or to

the Sessions Judge, no further application by the

same person shall be entertained by the other of

them.”

Discretion in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction

should be exercised within the four corners of this

section whenever there has been miscarriage of justice.

However, while exercising power under this section,

the Court does not act as an appellate Court and

therefore, while considering the legality, propriety or

the correctness of a finding or a conclusion, the

revisional court does not and should not dwell upon

the facts and the evidence of the case as an appellate

Court. The court, in revision, considers the material

only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and

propriety of the findings, sentence and order recorded

by the lower court, and should refra in from

substituting its conclusion on an elaborate

consideration of evidence, and the findings of the

lower courts should not be reversed merely on the

ground that an alternative view is possible on the facts

of the case. In this case, such a position did not also

emanate from the evidence on record.

11

2026:HHC:34448

7.1. This Court, in the State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan

Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659: 2004 SCC

(Cri) 2003, observed that the High Court, in exercise of

its revisional jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an in-

depth roving re-examination of the oral evidence and

medical evidence and come to a conclusion contrary to

the consistent one reached by two courts below. In the

facts of the present case, in the impugned judgment,

the High Court gravely erred in upsetting the

concurrent findings of conviction of the trial court and

the Appellate Court by substituting its own conclusions

and reasoning on the merits of the case and thereby

erred in setting aside the well-reasoned and correct

judgment and orders of the trial and appellate courts.

7.2. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order

dated 06.10.2023, it is apparent that the High Court

went into great detail into each of the testimonies,

documents and merits of the case which could have

been avoided, especially when the subject matter had

come under its revisional jurisdiction. Instead, acting

as an appellate Court, the High Court deemed it fit to

go into the merits of the case, something which is

generally impermissible unless a glaring contradiction

is apparent on the face of the record. In State of Kerala

v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC

452: 1999 SCC (Cri) 275, while considering the scope of

the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court

has laid down the following:

“5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High

Court can call for and examine the record of any

proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to

the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding,

sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is

one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the

High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice.

But the said revisional power cannot be equated

with the power of an appellate court nor can it be

treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction.

12

2026:HHC:34448

Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate

for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and

come to its own conclusion on the same when the

evidence has already been appreciated by the

Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal,

unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of

the High Court which would otherwise tantamount

to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the

impugned judgment of the High Court from the

aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come

to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its

jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the

Respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. …”

7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional jurisdiction

have been well settled by the judicial dicta of this Court

wherein time and again it has been observed that the

High Court shall not interfere with the orders of the

lower court unless:

i. The order or finding of the lower court is perverse,

grossly erroneous, glaringly unreasonable or

wholly unreliable or untenable in law.

ii. The lower court has passed the impugned order

after considering immaterial or irrelevant

material or no material at all.

iii. There is a non-consideration of any relevant

material or the judicial discretion has been

exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

7.4. This Court, in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar,

2025 INSC 1158, in similar facts and circumstances

wherein the High Court had reversed concurrent

findings of conviction under Section 138 of NI Act,

while setting aside the impugned order, observed as

under:

“27. It is well settled that in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in

13

2026:HHC:34448

the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual

findings. This Court is of the view that it is not for

the Revisional Court to reanalyse and re-interpret

the evidence on record. As held by this Court in

Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and

Handels GMBH, (2008) 14 SCC 457 , it is a well-

established principle of law that the Revisional

Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is

passed by a Court having jurisdiction, in the

absence of a jurisdictional error.

28. Consequently, this Court is of the view that in

the absence of perversity, it was not open to the

High Court in the present case, in revisional

jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the

Trial Court and the Sessions Court.”

7.5. In the facts of the present case, we find that the

High Court has failed to highlight any reason or

material satisfaction to the effect that there was any

such glaring contradiction or perversity apparent on

the face of the record so as to justify the exercise of the

powers under revisional jurisdiction and thereby erred

in interfering with the judgment and orders of the

courts below. Therefore, the present appeal has to be

allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the

High Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are

of the view that the High Court committed an error in

setting aside the order of conviction in exercise of

revisional jurisdiction. No sufficient ground has been

mentioned by the High Court in its judgment to enable

it to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside

the conviction.

14. The present revision has to be decided as per the

judgment.

15. The informant Pritam Singh (PW-1) stated that he

and his brother Mahal Singh were riding a scooter bearing

14

2026:HHC:34448

registration No. HP36-5001. He found a bus parked at 45

miles. The passengers were getting into the bus. Another bus

was coming from the opposite side. Hence , he stopped the

scooter at a distance of 4-5 meters from the parked bus. An

Alto car hit the scooter from the rear. He, his brother and the

scooter fell. His brother died in the accident. The accused was

driving the Alto car at the time of the accident.

16. Surya Kant (PW-14), another witness to the

accident, who was travelling in the car, has not supported the

prosecution case. He stated that when the car reached 45

miles, a bus was parked. The passengers were getting out of it

and into it, and another bus was coming from the opposite

side. The scooterist lost his balance and fell. He was permitted

to be cross-examined, and he denied that the car had hit the

scooter, due to which the scooterist fell. Thus, this witness

has not supported the prosecution's version.

17. Rajinder Singh (PW-6) was examined as an

eyewitness, but he has also not supported the prosecution

case. He was permitted to be cross-examined, but denied the

previous statement recorded by the police. He stated in his

cross-examination that the place of the accident is not visible

15

2026:HHC:34448

from his shop. It had rained heavily , and the road was

slippery. Thus, his testimony also does not corroborate the

informant's version that the accident had occurred because

the scooter was hit from the rear by the car.

18. HHC Inderjeet Singh (PW-4) mechanically

examined the vehicle and issued the report (Ext.PW-4/A). He

has not mentioned that the car had sustained any damage to

it. He mentioned that there was a mark of a dent towards the

right side of the shield of the scooter. The front mudguard had

a mark of scratching towards the right side.

19. Dr Chanderdeep Sharma (PW -12) found an injury

on the right temporal bone of Mahal Singh. The informant

stated that the scooter and the scooterist fell. The injuries on

the right side and damage to the scooter on the right side

show that the injuries and the damage were caused because of

the fall.

20. The photographs of the car and the scooter

(Ext.PW-10/A and Ext.PW-10/C) do not show any damage to

the rear side of the scooter or the front side of the car. The

photograph (Ext.PW-10/A) shows the front side of the car in

close-up, and no mark/dent is visible on the front bumper or

16

2026:HHC:34448

anywhere else. It was rightly submitted by Ms Sheetal Vyas,

learned counsel for the accused, that it is highly unlikely that

the scooter or the car would not have sustained any damage in

an impact.

21. HHC Inderjeet Singh (PW -4) admitted in his

cross-examination that the dent noticed by him on the

scooter could have been caused by way of skidding. Thus, his

testimony also corroborates the version that the damage

could have been caused by means of skidding.

22. The learned Courts below heavily relied upon the

informant's testimony to hold that his testimony was cogent

and reliable; however, they failed to notice the absence of any

damage to the scooter or the car. It is trite to say that men

may lie, but circumstances do not, and the absence of any

damage to the car and the scooter would make the

informant's testimony doubtful that the car had hit the

scooter.

23. Therefore, the informant's testimony was

not corroborated by any other material on record; rather, the

report of the mechanical expert made it doubtful. Learned

Courts below failed to appreciate the significance of the report

17

2026:HHC:34448

of the mechanical expert and were swayed by the informant’s

testimony, which is not sufficient to record conviction as

noticed above. Therefore, the judgments and order passed by

the learned Courts below cannot be sustained.

24. In view of the above, the present revision petition

is allowed, and the judgments and order passed by the learned

Courts below are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the

commission of an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337

and 304A of the IPC. The fine amount be refunded to him after

the expiry of limitation for filing an appeal, if no appeal is

filed, and in case of appeal the same be dealt with as per the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

25 In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the petitioner is directed to furnish

bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court which

shall be effective for six months with a stipulation that in the

event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this

judgment or on grant of the leave, the petitioner on receipt of

notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

18

2026:HHC:34448

26. The present revision stands disposed of, so also the

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any

27. A copy of the judgment, along with records of the

learned Courts below, be sent back forthwith.

(Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge

14

th

August, 2026.

(Ravinder)