Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V.HOSMANI
Saleem S/o Mohammed Jafar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to conviction and background of accident (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of the defense and prosecution (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and testimonies (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. sustaining conviction under mv act, set aside others (Para 22) |
| 5. final conclusion on revision petition (Para 23) |
ORDER :
1. Challenging judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna), in Crl.A.no.5023/2020 confirming judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in CC.no.01/2016, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri KL Sreenivas, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was, at about 9:00 a.m., on 20.06.2015, when Anil Kumar (complainant) was riding his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-11-X-8703 along with his uncle, Vasanthkumar as pillion rider from Pandavapura towards Srirangapatna, Saleem (accused) rode his motorcycle bearing registration no.KA-04-EU-7548 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life leading to collision between two motorcycles in which accident Anil Kumar
Conviction for traffic offences requires clear evidence of rashness, not merely high-speed driving; evidence of contributory negligence undermines charges under IPC.
Revisional court acquits of rash driving/death charges where site plan shows victim vehicle on wrong side, speed unquantified, negligence opinions inadmissible; upholds conviction for fleeing without....
Insufficient evidence and lack of investigation into the circumstances of the accident led to the acquittal of the accused of the charges of rash and negligent driving.
The conviction for driving in a rash and negligent manner was upheld, observing that the prosecution sufficiently established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony.
Rashness or negligence in driving not proved by accident alone, vague high speed claims, or absence of licence; injury inconsistency doubts prosecution; revisional jurisdiction limited to patent erro....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; cannot reappreciate evidence without perversity. Overtaking motorcycle on curve amid oncoming traffic is rash negligence under IPC Sections 279/337; probation inappli....
Evidence given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, when the witness is dead, is relevant for the purpose of proving the matter, provide....
Accusation of negligence requires proof of rash and negligent driving; high speed alone does not establish guilt in criminal law.
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
