Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J
Kuldip Singh @ Kalu Singh, Son of Late Joginder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Appellate Court’) in Crl.A. No. 28/2010, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner (accused before the Trial Court) was dismissed and the Judgment & Order dated 27.08.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in G.R. Case No. 1020/2007, whereby the petitioner/accused was convicted under Sections 279/304A/337 of IPC .
3. The facts of the case is that the jurisdictional Police Officer lodged an FIR on 23.08.2007 stating inter alia that it was learnt that on that date at about 9:40 a.m. on the Gar Ali, in front of the Punjab Engineering, while one Arifa Khatoon was riding a bicycle carrying her younger sister Armina Khatoon and was proceeding towards D.C.B. School, a Truck bearing registration No. AMS 5938 at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner driven by the petitioner/accused hit them from be
Conviction under IPC Sections 279 and 304A requires proof of rashness or negligence, which was established through evidence of excessive speed and failure to brake.
The main legal point established is the duty of care expected from drivers, the distinction between rashness and negligence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the allegations be....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the degree of negligence and rashness to establish offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing t....
The court confirmed the conviction for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, emphasizing the driver's duty of care and reducing the sentence from six to three months based on mitigatin....
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish negligence, which was not met in this case.
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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in evidence justified acquittal in a criminal 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
