Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Dharuv Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. negligent driving case; trial acquittal on doubtful evidence (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contentions on trial errors and acquittal justification (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. interfere with acquittal only if patently perverse (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. victim and witnesses confirm road crossing at accident (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. sudden crossing absolves driver of negligence (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. 'high speed' insufficient to prove rashness (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. no interference with reasonable acquittal; appeal dismissed (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.10.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the offences with which he was charged (sic). (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 appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for
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....
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....
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....
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....
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....
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.
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
