Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Avinash Sood – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution alleged tanker driver's rash negligence in accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. dispute over trial court's evidence appreciation and negligence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. appellate interference only if acquittal patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. 'high speed' insufficient without quantification for negligence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. witnesses cannot opine on driver's negligence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. motorcyclist must yield to highway vehicle from right. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. trial court's motorcyclist negligence view reasonable. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. appeal dismissed; acquittal order upheld. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the accused (respondent before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279,337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for conven
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....
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 for rash driving upheld if trial court's view reasonable; sudden pedestrian road crossing and vague high speed testimony insufficient to prove negligence.
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 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.
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....
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....
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....
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
