Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Ram Pal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against acquittal in rash driving accident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court convicted based on prosecution evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellate court acquitted due to probable defense. (Para 7) |
| 4. state contends negligence from high speed, site plan. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. no interference with reasonable acquittal view. (Para 11) |
| 6. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or ignores evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. eyewitness pw3 testimony contradictory, unreliable. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. parking on highway without indicators negligent. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. high speed alone proves no rash negligence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 10. acquittal upheld; no accused negligence proved. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.07.2011, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the l
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....
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....
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....
Interference with acquittal only if perverse or ignoring material evidence; driver not negligent if pedestrian suddenly crosses road with no specific proof of excessive speed beyond vague 'high speed....
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.
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 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....
Appellate courts should not disturb acquittal if trial court's view is reasonable and possible on evidence, despite contradictions in prosecution witnesses and support for defence version from site p....
High speed alone insufficient for rash/negligent driving proof; probable defence of evading sudden obstacle via justified deviation upheld acquittal on appeal.
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
