MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar Camp Sri. Madhopur (for brevity, "learned Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2002 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the judgment dated 07.02.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ringus (for brevity, "learned trial Court") in Criminal Case No.36/1991, BT 419/93 convicting and sentencing him as under, has been upheld:-
(ii) Section 337 IPC - Two months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 300 fine, in default whereof, five days simple imprisonment.
(iii) Section 338 IPC - Six months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 fine, in default whereof, ten days simple imprisonment.
(iv) Section 304A IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200 fine, in default whereof, simple imprisonment of one month.
2. All the sentences to run concurrently.
3. The relevant facts in brief are that on Parcha B
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015) 3 SCC 123
State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452
The court affirmed the conviction for rash driving based on sufficient evidence, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while reducing the sentence to one year based on mitigating circumstances.
The main legal point established is that the conviction for rash and negligent driving was upheld based on the evidence of injured witnesses and documentary evidence, while the offence under Section ....
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction should not disturb concurrent findings unless there is a manifest injustice.
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborating evidence to prove rash and negligent driving, as well as the consideration of the nature and circumstances of ....
Motor Accident - Rash and Negligence driving - Death - Conviction affirmed - Petitioner witnesses are independent eye witnesses to occurrence who are having their shops near place of occurrence and t....
The judgment establishes the principle that evidence of actionable negligence, supported by witness testimonies and material evidence, can lead to a conviction for the offense of rash and negligent d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove actionable negligence and the application of sentencing policy based on the proportionality of the offence.
The court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to the time already served, emphasizing the need for a just and reasonable sentence considering the petitioner's circumstances.
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.