Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Pamidimukkala Sambasiva Rao S/o Raghavaiah – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 assailing the judgment dated 03.11.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.80 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali (for short ‘1st Appellate Court’) whereby the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants/A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) vide judgment dated 25.02.2009 passed in C.C.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, (for short ‘the Trial Court’).
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:
PW.1 lodged a complaint stating that on 08.04.2007, she and her husband (the deceased) boarded an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 Z 2803 at Bhattiprolu to travel to Pallekona village to visit their children. Upon reaching their destination, i.e., Uppuvagu br
In a negligence case, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere occurrence of an accident does not suffice to infer negligence.
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish negligence, which was not met in this case.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in a rash and negligent manner to secure a conviction under IPC sections 279 and 304(A); insufficient evidence can lead t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to establish guilt under Section 304(A) of I.P.C.
Criminal liability for negligence requires clear evidence of rashness; mere occurrence of an accident does not imply guilt.
In a prosecution for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver of the vehicle and that their actions we....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove the offense under Section 304A of IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate rash and negligent driving, and mere speed cannot be equat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
