The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for negligent reversing of a vehicle that resulted in a fatal accident. The Court reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless perverse or legally erroneous. The judgment clarifies that contributory negligence is no defence in criminal law and that related witnesses’ testimonies cannot be discarded solely on grounds of relationship unless motivated by enmity or falsity.
Case Details
Amit Kapoor vs. State of H.P.
2026:HHC:24827
Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Date
25.06.2026
Case Number
Cr. Revision No. 157 of 2014
Bench
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Counsel
Pet: Mr Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate, Mr Anubhav Chopra, Advocate
Res: Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General
Frequently Asked Questions
Negligence under Section 279 IPC involves rash or negligent driving that endangers human life or personal safety. In this case, the Court held that the accused’s failure to ensure safety before reversing the vehicle, violating Rule 31 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, constituted negligence. The accused’s act of reversing without checking for pedestrians was sufficient to establish negligence.
No. Contributory negligence is no defence in criminal law under Section 304A IPC. The Court relied on Islavath Taru Naik v. State of A.P., which held that the accused remains liable even if the victim contributed to the accident. The accused’s negligence must be the proximate cause of the death.
Yes. The Court held that related witnesses’ testimonies cannot be discarded solely on grounds of relationship unless motivated by enmity or falsity. The testimonies must be scrutinized with care but can be relied upon if consistent and reliable, as held in Laltu Ghosh v. State of W.B. and Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab.
No. The Court held that offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC warrant deterrent sentences, and the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be granted. This position was reiterated in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing the need to curb rash and negligent driving.
