Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Praveer Bhatnagar
Anil Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.04.2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.97/2004 (Old No.78/2004), whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 09.11.2004, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhubnu in Criminal Case No.312/1995, whereby the revisionist- petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Under Section 304-A IPC:- | Two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of which, to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. |
| Under Section 337 IPC:- | Three months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of which, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. |
| Under Section 279 IPC:- | One month rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of which, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. |
3. Brief fact
The court affirmed that reliable testimony from a solitary witness can suffice for conviction, even amidst conflicting statements from other witnesses regarding negligence causing death.
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving, affirming the necessity of adequate punishment proportional to the crime's gravity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony and physical evidence to establish guilt under Section 304(A) of I.P.C.
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 judgment emphasizes the importance of considering evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence, in determining negligence and liability in cases of accidents resulting ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that driving in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injuries and death, constitutes offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of IPC. T....
The court upheld the conviction for causing death and injuries due to negligent driving, affirming the lower courts' findings while reducing the sentence from six to three months based on mitigating ....
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving rashly or negligently; mere assumptions are insufficient for conviction.
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....
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
