Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenges acquittal in fatal motorcycle accident. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial acquitted lacking eyewitness negligence proof. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. parties contend on negligence evidence and acquittal scope. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. trial court reasonable view; no interference. (Para 11 , 30) |
| 5. interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse. (Para 12) |
| 6. negligence is failure of reasonable care. (Para 13) |
| 7. high speed alone insufficient for rash negligence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. no driving licence not per se negligence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. witnesses post-accident, not eyewitnesses. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. appeal dismissed; bail bonds directed. (Para 31 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, he was convicted for the commission of offence punishable un
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....
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.
Mere 'high speed' testimony without specifics or skid marks insufficient for rash driving conviction; at intersections, side-road entrants must yield to main highway traffic; reasonable acquittals no....
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....
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....
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 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....
In acquittal appeals, no interference unless perverse; 'high speed' without quantification or collision corroboration fails to prove rash/negligent driving; trial court's reasonable view upheld.
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....
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
