Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee
Manish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner, by the present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , Hereinafter referred as “ Cr.P.C . seeks to assail the judgment dated 03.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-07, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, [Hereinafter referred as “learned ASJ”] in Criminal Appeal no.384/2019 whereby the learned ASJ has dismissed his appeal and upheld the order of conviction dated 03.09.2019 and order of sentence dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-06 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, [Hereinafter referred as “learned MM], however reduced the sentence to eighteen months from twenty four months under Section 304A of the IPC , arising out of FIR No.48/2012 dated 20.02.2012 registered under Section(s) 279/304A at P.S. Hauz Khas, Delhi, whereby the petitioner was convicted of offences under Section(s) 279 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , [Hereinafter referred as “ IPC ] and awarded sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment, [Hereinafter referred as “RI] under Section 304A IPC and six months of Simple Imprisonment, [Hereinafter referred as “SI] under Section 279 IPC , [both s
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving in a 'rash and negligent' manner; mere high speed does not suffice to establish guilt under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Conviction for negligent driving requires substantial evidence beyond mere speed; a driver cannot be held liable under IPC without evidence proving rashness and negligence distinctly.
Rash driving or riding on a public way – There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be ....
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
The scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited to addressing manifest errors or legal bar against proceedings, emphasizing that revisional courts cannot review evidence as appellate court....
The prosecution must prove charges of criminal negligence or rashness beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked in the absence of conclusive evidence.
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
