Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident facts and lower courts' convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. no negligence evidence; interested witnesses. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited to errors. (Para 9 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. no license constitutes negligence. (Para 11) |
| 5. injuries inconsistent with accident version. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. high speed alone not negligence. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. rashness and negligence defined distinctly. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 8. no license not per se negligence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. witnesses cannot opine negligence. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. acquitted ipc rashness; upheld no-license fine. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 04.07.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 20.10.2009 and order of sentence dated 23.10.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as theywere arrayed before the learned Trial Court for co
Rashness or negligence in driving not proved by accident alone, vague high speed claims, or absence of licence; injury inconsistency doubts prosecution; revisional jurisdiction limited to patent erro....
Revisional court acquits of rash driving/death charges where site plan shows victim vehicle on wrong side, speed unquantified, negligence opinions inadmissible; upholds conviction for fleeing without....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors or perversity, not reappreciating concurrent findings; high speed in crowded area causing loss of control despite sudden obstacle constitutes driver n....
Skid marks and eyewitness high speed testimony prove rash negligent driving under IPC 279/337; revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent perversity.
Driving recklessly and losing control of a vehicle causing injury or death constitutes negligence, warranting conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC.
Negligence while driving under intoxication resulting in damage to property is a valid ground for conviction under criminal law, demonstrating the importance of maintaining road safety standards.
The court held that concurrent findings of two lower courts regarding negligence and causation in a motor vehicle accident are binding unless proven erroneous, reinforcing limitations on the scope of....
Revisional jurisdiction narrowly limited against concurrent convictions; negligence proved by high-speed wrong-side driving causing vehicle to hit pedestrians, parapet and overturn, absent mechanical....
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
