P&H: Upholds Acquittal of SDM in Road Accident Case, Says Mere Presence in Vehicle Not Enough for Section 201 IPC

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 31 Aug 2026
Headnotes

(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.401, 401(3), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.201, 279 and 304A — Revisional jurisdiction against acquittal — High Court does not sit as Court of appeal and cannot convert finding of acquittal into one of conviction — Interference is permissible only in...

(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.201, 279, 304-A — Rash and negligent driving — Mere presence of person in vehicle at time of accident cannot by itself establish culpability u/s.201 IPC — Prosecution must prove particular role attributed to accused in causing disappearance of evidence...

(iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.401, 401(3), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.201, 279 and 304A — Revisional jurisdiction against acquittal — Once principal eye witness himself has not attributed any act of instigation or participation in disappearance of evidence to accused, hostile testimony of other witnesses cannot,...


Facts of the Case

P&H: Upholds Acquittal of SDM in Road Accident Case, Says Mere Presence in Vehicle Not Enough for Section 201 IPC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by complainant Yashpal Bansal challenging the acquittal of then SDM Mahinder Singh in a fatal road accident case from 1998.

The case arose from an accident in Ambala’s Motor Market, where a scooter carrying two college students was hit by a Gypsy vehicle. One of the boys died on the spot and the other died while being taken to hospital. The prosecution alleged that the Gypsy was driven rashly and that Mahinder Singh was present in it and had helped the driver flee from the scene.

The trial...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File