Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal in fatal bus accident case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution evidence and accused's sudden van defense. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court convicts on high speed and eyewitnesses. (Para 6) |
| 4. appellate court acquits lacking negligence proof. (Para 7) |
| 5. state argues negligence from right-side driving. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 6. accused justified avoiding van collision. (Para 11) |
| 7. interfere with acquittal only if perverse. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. rashness: reckless risk; negligence: care omission. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 9. high speed alone insufficient for negligence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. defense witness credible; equal weight to testimony. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 11. section 81 ipc excuses avoiding greater harm. (Para 27) |
| 12. witnesses cannot opine on driver's negligence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 13. acquittal upheld; no negligence established. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2009 passed by learned Judi
High speed alone insufficient for rash/negligent driving proof; probable defence of evading sudden obstacle via justified deviation upheld acquittal on appeal.
Acquittal under IPC Sections 279/337 upheld as site plan showed accused vehicle on correct side, witnesses' vague 'high speed'/negligence opinions inadmissible, no specific negligence proved; appella....
No appellate interference with reasonable acquittal in rash driving case where victim suddenly crossed road, 'high speed' unquantified, witnesses hostile/contradictory, and negligence unproved beyond....
Appeal against acquittal for rash driving upheld if trial court's view reasonable; sudden pedestrian road crossing and vague high speed testimony insufficient to prove negligence.
Acquittal under IPC Section 279 upheld where parked vehicle negligently on highway without indicators; mere 'high speed' claim insufficient for rashness proof absent specifics; limited interference i....
Appellate court upholds acquittal in rash driving case absent proof of negligence; interferes only if trial court's reasonable view perverse or ignores evidence, allowing doubt from possible mechanic....
Acquittal upheld in rash driving appeal where site plan/photographs show victim's vehicle in road middle violating keep-left rule as proximate cause; vague 'high speed' and negligence opinions insuff....
Appeal against acquittal not to be interfered unless perverse or ignores evidence; mere 'high speed' without specifics insufficient for rash negligence; road rules require yielding at junctions to ri....
High speed testimony without quantification insufficient for rash/negligent driving; no driving licence not per se negligence; acquittal upheld as trial view reasonable, no appellate interference abs....
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
