Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI V. HOSMANI
Rajanna, S/o. Eranna – Appellant
Versus
State By Lakkavalli Police, Rep By SPP – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.
Challenging judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.A.no.141/2020 confirming judgment dated 23.07.2020 passed by Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere, in CC.no.389/2018, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, case of prosecution was, at about 4:00 p.m., on 14.03.2018, when Prathap was riding his motor cycle bearing registration no.KA-18-ED-6154 from Lakkavalli towards Maridibba on Tarikere - Lakkavalli road, accused - driver of Alto Car bearing registration no.KA-01-MC-5620 drove it in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, which led to collision between Alto Car and Motor Cycle, in which accident, Prathap sustaining severe injuries and died on spot. It was also alleged that accused stopped his car and ran away from spot thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (' IPC ' for short) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short). On investigation, chargesheet was filed for said offences.
3. It was submitted, accused appeared before trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Duri
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.
Conviction for traffic offences requires clear evidence of rashness, not merely high-speed driving; evidence of contributory negligence undermines charges under IPC.
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 court held that concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding negligence and causation in a motor vehicle accident are binding unless proven erroneous, reinforcing limitations on the scope of....
The revisional court cannot reassess evidence unless a clear injustice is demonstrated; concurrent findings of fact are upheld.
In criminal revisions, courts do not re-evaluate evidence unless glaring injustices or violations warrant it.
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
