Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Haminder Chauna – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident facts, investigation, and trial acquittal (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties contend on trial court's acquittal error (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. limited appellate interference with reasonable acquittals (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. site plan confirms informant's car in road middle (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. wrong-side driving violates road rules negligence (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. high speed testimony needs specific quantification proof (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. witnesses cannot opine on driver's negligence (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. trial court reasonable view no interference (Para 31) |
| 9. appeal dismissed procedural directions issued (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.03.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charges framed against him after giving him the benefit of doubt. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
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....
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.
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 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....
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....
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....
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....
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.
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
