Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
N. Naveen Kumar, S/o. Sri Nanjundappa – Appellant
Versus
State By Sulibele Police Represented By Its Special Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. Accused is before this Court in this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.01.2016 passed in CC No.241/2013 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote and the judgment and order dated 03.04.2017 passed in Crl.A.No.3/2016 by the Court of VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner herein was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Sections 6(2) and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in CC No.241/2013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.12.2012 at about 02:55 p. m. near Beereshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Sulibele, on NH-207, the petitioner, who is a driver in BMTC, drove the bus bearing registration No.KA01/F3462 in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, Smt. Munithayamma, who was travelling in the bus, fell down and came under the rear wheel of the bus and sustained injuries. She, subsequently, died in the Ho
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....
In a negligence case, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere occurrence of an accident does not suffice to infer negligence.
The judgment emphasizes the need for conclusive evidence to establish criminal negligence in cases of rash and negligent driving, highlighting the principle of res ipsa loquitur and the imperative du....
The prosecution must prove the appellant's identity and culpability beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
Criminal liability for negligence requires clear evidence of rashness; mere occurrence of an accident does not imply guilt.
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish negligence, which was not met in this case.
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
