[Road Accident] “High Speed” Is A Relative Term, Accused Can't Be Held Guilty Solely Based On Speed: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stating that a vehicle was being driven at “high speed” is not enough, by itself, to prove rashness or negligence. Speed is a relative term and must be explained with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do”.

Background facts:

The informant, Pritam Chand, stated that he was travelling in a bus when it collided with a truck near Halti Bridge, Hamirpur. He claimed that both vehicles were moving at high speed, and as the drivers could not control them, the vehicles hit each other.

Upon investigation, the police alleged that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver, who was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Thereafter, the police filed a before the Trial Court for offences under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 337 (causing hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 181 (driving without a valid licence) and 187 (failing to give information or report an accident) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Trial Court convicted the accused, holding that records proved that the truck was driven at high speed. It found that the driver of the bus stopped his vehicle after seeing that the truck was coming at high speed. However, the truck driver did not stop, causing the accident. After the collision, the truck driver fled the scene.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the petitioner filed an appeal. However, the Appellate Court upheld the findings recorded by the Trial Court and stated that the identity of the truck driver was proved by the testimony of Brij Lal, owner of the truck.

Thereafter, the accused filed a revision petition before the High Court, challenging both the Trial Court and Appellate Court's decision.

Findings:

The Court observed that Brij Lal, the truck's owner, testified that he had hired Kuldeep Chand, not Deep Raj, as the driver a month before the accident. He provided documents to the police and a certificate mentioning Deep Chand.

Further, according to the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court, the day when the owner of the truck was examined, the accused was present in Court, yet the owner was never asked to identify him.

In Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025, the Supreme Court held “that the identification of the accused sitting in the Court by the witnesses is highly important, and the statement of a witness naming the accused is not sufficient”. 

Since the owner did not identify the accused in Court and stated that he had employed another person named Kuldeep Chand one month before the accident, the evidence did not prove who was driving the truck.  The prosecution relied on a certificate which mentioned that Deep Raj was employed as a driver. The Court noted that this certificate was like a statement made to the police during the investigation.

A statement given to the police during an investigation is barred by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be proved in a Court of Law. The investigating officer can't just ignore the rule by asking the witness to write the statement instead of recording it himself.

In Kali Ram v. State of H.P., the Supreme Court held that “the letter written by a witness to the SHO, is like a statement made by him to police and is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the certificate produced by the owner of the truck was inadmissible, as there was insufficient evidence to prove that the accused was driving the truck at the time of the incident”.

The Court also found that the alleged negligence of the truck driver was not proved. The Mere statement of the informant that the truck came at high speed was vague. In Mohanta Lal vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that “the use of the term 'high speed' by a witness amounts to nothing unless it is elicited from the witness what is understood by the term 'high speed.”

In, State of H.P. Vs. Vs. Parmodh Singh 2008, the HP High Court itself held that “Mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed or slow speed does not lead to an inference that negligent or rash driving had caused the accident”.

Therefore, the Court held that the accused could not be held liable based on high speed alone without any other evidence showing that he had failed in his duty to drive carefully.

Additionally, the FIR stated that both vehicles were moving at speed, but duringthe  trial, the prosecution changed its version and claimed that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the truck driver. The Court held that the Trial Court should not have accepted this new version because it contradicted the original FIR.

Thus, the High Court set aside the trial court judgement and the accused were acquitted.

Case Name: Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 4119 of 2013

Date of Decision: 24.06.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Nand Lal Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Jitender K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Click Here To Read/Download Order