Absence of a driving license does not constitute criminal negligence where the accused’s violation is the proximate cause.

The Petitioner, driving a bus (HP-65-7644) on July 7, 2009, allegedly overtook a Gypsy at high speed and collided with a motorcycle (HP-34A-9430) on the motorcycle's correct side of the road.

The motorcycle rider, Vivek Thakur (PW1), sustained grievous fractures, and the pillion rider, Hira Lal (PW4), sustained simple injuries.

The Trial Court convicted the Petitioner under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC, which was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Judge, Kullu.

The Petitioner filed this revision contending that PW1 was a minor without a valid license, constituting contributory negligence, and that independent witnesses were not examined.

1. Whether the absence of a driving license on the part of the victim amounts to negligence or absolves the accused of criminal liability.

2. Whether the non-examination of independent witnesses or cited witnesses like Mohar Singh vitiates the prosecution's case.

3. Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to a convict in a motor accident case involving rash and negligent driving.

The court applied Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by negligence), and 338 (causing grievous hurt by negligence) of the IPC.

Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that the absence of a driving license does not necessarily imply incompetence or negligence.

Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, which holds that the evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value.

Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana, which bars the application of the Probation of Offenders Act for rash and negligent driving offenses under Section 304-A/279 IPC due to the need for deterrence.

Rule 2 and 6 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, regarding the duty to drive on the left and caution while overtaking.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s act of overtaking a vehicle on a curve and moving to the wrong (right) side of the road was the proximate cause of the accident, violating statutory road regulations.

It rejected the "contributory negligence" argument, holding that the victim's lack of a driving license did not contribute to the accident and was not a defense for the Petitioner’s rashness.

The Court found the injured witnesses' testimonies reliable and corroborated by the site plan (Ex.PW10/B), which placed the impact on the motorcycle's side of the road.

Regarding the non-examination of Mohar Singh, the Court held that the Public Prosecutor is not required to examine all cited witnesses if the evidence on record is already sufficient and truthful.

Finally, the Court noted that in motor vehicle accidents, deterrence is paramount; thus, the Petitioner was ineligible for probation.

It held that the Petitioner was rightly convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC as his negligence in overtaking on the wrong side was the direct cause of the injuries.

The sentence of six months' simple imprisonment was upheld, and the prayer for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was denied based on settled Supreme Court precedents regarding road safety.