DELHI HIGH COURT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
State (GNGT of Delhi) – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case of negligence in driving. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. essentials for proving section 279 ipc. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. appellate court's powers on acquittal. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. prosecution failed to prove charges. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in connection with FIR No. 136/2010 PS Mangol Puri, Delhi for offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 13.03.2010 at about 12.30 AM, the respondent/accused was driving a vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. HR-38E-0194 on a public way rashly and negligently. The respondent/accused struck against one car bearing registration No. DL-1YB-7131 and caused simple and grievous injury to the passengers, namely, Antima Gupta and Shenam Jain. It is alleged that since the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently so as to endanger the human life or to be likely to cause injury to other persons, FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered ag
The prosecution must establish negligence or rash driving beyond reasonable doubt; lack of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses is crucial for acquittal.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to overturn a trial court's acquittal.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.