Case at a Glance
A bus driver convicted for hitting an oncoming car near Amb in Una district asked the Himachal Pradesh High Court to set aside his conviction or at least release him on probation. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that the site plan and photographs showed the bus had crossed to the wrong side, that non-examination of passengers did not weaken the case, and that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be given for rash or negligent driving. The two months’ simple imprisonment under Section 338 IPC was upheld, but the separate sentence under Section 337 IPC was set aside under Section 71 IPC because Section 338 is an aggravated form of the same offence.
The informant was driving a car from Chintpurni towards Amb when a bus driven by the accused, coming from the opposite direction at high speed, allegedly hit the car at village Aloh at about 12:30 pm. The informant was injured. Police registered an FIR and filed a challan. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses; in his statement under Section 313 CrPC the accused admitted driving the bus but denied negligence. A witness connected with the bus did not support the prosecution and said the car was overtaking a road roller.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amb convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC and sentenced him on each count to two months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹500, with ten days’ default imprisonment, the sentences running concurrently. On 23 July 2015 the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una (Circuit Court, Amb) dismissed his appeal. He filed a criminal revision in the High Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a High Court in revision reappreciate concurrent findings that a bus driver was negligent, and can a person convicted of rash and negligent driving causing grievous hurt be released on probation?
Limits of Revision, Wrong-Side Driving and Why Probation Was Refused
Justice Rakesh Kainthla first restated that “the revisional court does not and should not dwell upon the facts and the evidence,” and can interfere only for perversity, reliance on irrelevant material or non-consideration of relevant material, citing Kuntegowda v. Thurubaiah 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485, State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 08 SC CK 0124 (2004) 7 SCC 659, State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 02 SC CK 0014 (1999) 2 SCC 452 and Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, (2025) 09 SC CK 0342 2025 INSC 1158. On the facts, the site plan and photographs showed that the bus had crossed to the right side of the road. The defence witness’s version was contrary to that physical evidence and was rightly rejected: “It is trite to say that men may lie but circumstances do not.” The Court relied on Fagu Moharana v. State, (1959) 10 OHC CK 0010 AIR 1961 Orissa 71, State of H.P. v. Dinesh Kumar 2008 H.L.J. 399, State of H.P. v. Niti Raj, (2009) 01 SHI CK 0002 2009 Cr.L.J. 1922 and Shakila Khader v. Nausheer Cama, (1975) 03 SC CK 0018 (1975) 4 SCC 122, and, following Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1988) 02 SC CK 0031 AIR 1988 SC 696, held that not examining the bus passengers did not defeat the prosecution case.
On sentence, the Court held, relying on Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 05 SC CK 0020 (2000) 5 SCC 82, Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 9 SCC 208 and State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh, (2012) 01 SC CK 0065 (2012) 2 SCC 182, that “it is impermissible to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act” for rash or negligent driving. Two months’ imprisonment for causing grievous hurt was not excessive. However, since Section 338 IPC is an aggravated form of Section 337 IPC, separate punishment for both was barred by Section 71 IPC, and the Court set aside the sentence under Section 337, citing Rajesh v. State of M.P. 2010 SCC OnLine MP 178.
What the Court Actually Held
- In revision, concurrent findings of fact can be disturbed only for perversity, irrelevant material or ignoring relevant material; none was shown.
- The site plan and photographs proved the bus was on the wrong side; non-examination of passengers did not weaken the prosecution case.
- The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted for rash or negligent driving; two months’ simple imprisonment under Section 338 IPC was upheld.
- The sentence under Section 337 IPC was set aside under Section 71 IPC; the convictions and sentences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC were upheld and the revision partly allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reinforces that drivers who cause injury through rash driving should not expect release on probation, following Supreme Court authority.
- It shows the weight courts place on site plans and photographs over oral accounts in accident cases.
- It clarifies that a driver cannot be separately punished under Sections 337 and 338 IPC for the same act.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accident Victims
- Site plans and photographs prepared during investigation can be decisive in proving which vehicle was on the wrong side.
- A criminal conviction for rash driving can stand even if eyewitness passengers are not examined.
For Counsel
- For the defence: a probation plea in rash-driving cases faces Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana; focus instead on the evidence of negligence or on sentence.
- Raise Section 71 IPC where an accused is sentenced under both Sections 337 and 338 for one act.
- In revisions, frame the challenge as perversity or non-consideration of evidence; a plain re-argument of facts will fail.
Key Takeaways
- No probation for rash and negligent driving, the High Court reaffirmed.
- Physical evidence of the bus on the wrong side outweighed a defence witness.
- Two months’ simple imprisonment under Section 338 IPC was upheld.
- The Section 337 sentence went, as Section 338 is its aggravated form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a person convicted of rash driving get probation?
According to this judgment, which follows Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana and other Supreme Court rulings, it is impermissible to grant the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act for rash or negligent driving.
Why was the Section 337 IPC sentence set aside?
Because Section 338 (grievous hurt) is an aggravated form of Section 337 (simple hurt), and Section 71 IPC bars separate punishment for both in respect of the same act.
Does the prosecution have to examine bus passengers?
No. Relying on Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, the Court held that non-examination of passengers did not defeat the prosecution case.
Conclusion
More than a decade after the appellate court ruled, the revision ended with the conviction intact and a short jail term confirmed. The only relief was technical: one overlapping sentence was removed.
Practical takeaway: For drivers facing rash-driving charges, probation is not available; the case turns on the physical evidence of the accident, and overlapping sentences under Sections 337 and 338 IPC can be challenged under Section 71 IPC.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com