‘High-Speed’ Not Enough for Conviction: Himachal Pradesh HC Clears Truck Driver in Accident Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently acquitted a truck driver of all criminal charges in a 2007 road accident case, observing that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove his identity and negligence.
The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, in the criminal revision petition filed by Deep Raj, set aside the concurrent findings of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Court in Hamirpur, noting serious flaws in evidence appreciation and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version of events.
A collision had occurred in 2007 near the Hatli Bridge at around midnight, involving a bus and a truck carrying 180 cement bags. The prosecution claimed that Deep Raj, allegedly under the influence of alcohol and without a valid driving license, was behind the wheel of the truck and was driving at high speed when the vehicle rammed into the bus.
The trial court had relied heavily on a certificate issued by Brij Lal, the truck’s owner, which named Deep Raj as the driver. However, the high court pointed out that the certificate was inadmissible under Section 162 of the CrPC, being equivalent to a police statement made during investigation. Court also highlighted that he was not asked to identify the accused in court which as per the ruling of the Supreme Court in Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025, is highly important.
Importantly, court emphasized that “high speed” alone cannot constitute rash or negligent driving unless corroborated by specific facts. Citing several Supreme Court rulings, it observed that speed is a relative term, and the mere assertion of “high speed” does not establish criminal negligence.
"The accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was inbreach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do," the high court held.
Court further noted that the FIR initially alleged negligence on part of both drivers, stating that both the vehicles were moving at a high speed, but the prosecution later changed its version during trial, claiming the bus was stationary when it was hit by the truck. This shift, the court said, cast serious doubt on the entire case, weakening the credibility of the evidence presented.
Court also stressed that a revisional court is not meant to reappreciate evidence unless there is a glaring miscarriage of justice—which, in this case, was evident.
Therefore, acquitting the truck driver, court directed that any fine amount paid be refunded to him after the statutory appeal period lapses. He was also asked to furnish bail bonds in accordance with Section 437-A of the CrPC to ensure his presence in case of further appeal.
Case Title: Deep Raj vs State of HP
Download order here