Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Ram Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to earlier convictions (Para 1) |
| 2. description of accident and witness accounts (Para 2 , 4 , 28) |
| 3. court's validation of witness credibility (Para 6 , 11 , 30) |
| 4. accused's assertion of innocence and lack of evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 5. establishing negligence of the accused (Para 12 , 19 , 21 , 24 , 32) |
| 6. limitations of revisional jurisdiction (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. conclusion of the appeal and dismissal (Para 33 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 29.05.2007 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2007, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, (learned Trial Court) convicting the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 187 of Motor Vehicles (in short ‘MV Act’) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for c
The revisional court exercises limited jurisdiction, focusing only on clear legal errors while upholding convictions based on substantial evidence of negligence.
Revisional court acquits of rash driving/death charges where site plan shows victim vehicle on wrong side, speed unquantified, negligence opinions inadmissible; upholds conviction for fleeing without....
Rashness or negligence in driving not proved by accident alone, vague high speed claims, or absence of licence; injury inconsistency doubts prosecution; revisional jurisdiction limited to patent erro....
Negligence while driving under intoxication resulting in damage to property is a valid ground for conviction under criminal law, demonstrating the importance of maintaining road safety standards.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 limited to patent errors/perversity, not re-appreciating evidence; driving on wrong side of road negligence causing accident, upheld conviction but redu....
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....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors or perversity, not reappreciating concurrent findings; high speed in crowded area causing loss of control despite sudden obstacle constitutes driver n....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; lower courts erred ignoring mechanical reports' inconsistencies on vehicle damage and witness speed contradiction, creating reasonable doubt on rash dri....
Driving recklessly and losing control of a vehicle causing injury or death constitutes negligence, warranting conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC.
Revisional jurisdiction confines to patent defects or perversity, not reappreciating evidence; concurrent findings on driver's identity and negligence in reversing without safety check upheld, sustai....
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
