Driving on the wrong side of the road constitutes actionable negligence regardless of the victim's alleged lack of attention.

On December 9, 2008, the informant, Devinder Singh (PW1), was riding his motorcycle near Sunny Slipper Factory when he was hit by a Mahindra Bolero driven by the accused.

PW1 alleged that the accused was speeding and driving on the wrong side of the road.

The accused fled the spot, and PW1 sustained grievous injuries.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on March 3, 2014, citing contradictions in the informant's testimony and an admission by an eyewitness (PW3) that the informant was looking towards a factory instead of the road during the accident.

The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused by misreading evidence regarding the proximate cause of the accident and the driver's negligence.

2. Whether the non-examination of a witness (Ram Swaroop) and minor contradictions in the informant's statement justified an acquittal.

The court applied Sections 279 (rash driving) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life) of the Indian Penal Code.

Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, particularly Rule 2, which mandates driving on the left side of the road.

Regarding the scope of interference in acquittals, the court applied principles from Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (patent perversity).

Principle from Hollington v. Hawthorn and State of H.P. v. Niti Raj, stating that a witness cannot depose an opinion on "negligence," as that is a legal conclusion for the court to draw.

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act was applied regarding the mandatory procedure for contradicting a witness with prior statements.

The High Court found the Trial Court's reasoning "perverse" and based on "irrelevant considerations".

It noted that the site plan (Ext.PW8/D) and photographs (Ext.PW4/A-1 to A-3) clearly showed the Bolero was on the wrong (right) side of the narrow 8-foot road.

The Court rejected the Trial Court's reliance on PW3’s opinion that the driver wasn't negligent, ruling that negligence is a judicial inference, not a matter for witness testimony.

The Court clarified that even if the informant was "looking towards the factory," the proximate cause of the accident was the accused’s violation of Rule 2 of the Road Regulations.

The Court held that minor contradictions regarding who took the victim to the hospital did not shake the core of the testimony.

It also ruled that the Trial Court's use of the informant's prior statement to contradict him was illegal because his attention was not specifically drawn to the contradictions as required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal; the accused is convicted under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC and the matter was listed for hearing on the quantum of sentence.