Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Parkash Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (learned Appellate Court) vide which, the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur (learned Trial Court) convicting and sentencing the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) was upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). It was asserted that the informant, Dina Nath (PW1), and his son Sunil Dutt (PW7) were returning from Shimla in a bus bearing registration No. HP-10-0388, which was being driven by the accused. Sunil Dutt had sustained a fracture earlier in an accident, and he had gone to Shimla to get himself examined. When the bus reached Namhol at 12-12:15 pm, the accused drove it towards the other side of the road and hit a truck coming
Negligent driving resulting in injuries constitutes a violation of IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338, warranting conviction and deterrent sentencing.
Revisional jurisdiction limited; cannot reappreciate evidence without perversity. Overtaking motorcycle on curve amid oncoming traffic is rash negligence under IPC Sections 279/337; probation inappli....
Strict adherence to precedent necessitates deterrence in sentencing for reckless driving resulting in death, reflecting societal responsibility.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of a driver to exercise caution and adhere to traffic rules, emphasizing the need for deterrence in sentencing for offenses related to ras....
Evidence given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, when the witness is dead, is relevant for the purpose of proving the matter, provide....
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish negligence, which was not met in this case.
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
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
