Back
SAMEER JAIN
Manohari – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(Sameer Jain, J.)
The instant revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 15.03.2005, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karauli in Criminal Appeal No.03/2002 whereby while setting aside the appeal, the order of conviction dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Case No. 452/1999 was upheld.
2. The undisputed and ineluctable facts of the instant revision, are briefly noted herein-under:-
2.1. That on 19.06.1999, the complainant-Sh. Ramkesh Meena lodged a written report at Police Station, Karauli regarding an accident stated to have occurred on 18.06.1999.
2.2. That on the basis of the said written report, the police registered a criminal case vide F.I.R. No. 376/1999 for offence under Section 304A of IPC and subsequently, proceeded with the investigation.
2.3. That the police after conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. Furthermore, after filing of the said charge-sheet, the learned trial court read over the substance of the charge for the aforementioned offence to the petitioner. Cons
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304A IPC, emphasizing the sufficiency of eyewitness testimony and the standards for revising lower court decisions.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove the offense under Section 304A of IPC, the prosecution must demonstrate rash and negligent driving, and mere speed cannot be equat....
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....
Concurrent findings of guilty must be upheld unless glaring defects are present or a miscarriage of justice occurs; professional drivers may not qualify for probation under Section 304-A IPC.
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.
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....
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
