Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. high-speed bus negligence caused pedestrian injuries. (Para 2) |
| 2. trial evidence and accused's denial presented. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts upheld conviction on skid marks. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. mere high speed insufficient for rashness. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. skid marks evidence uncontrolled high speed. (Para 11) |
| 7. skid marks prove negligence; no witness opinion. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. eyewitness corroborates; slow speed near college required. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. hostile witness impeached by prior statement. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. second eyewitness credibility successfully impeached. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 11. corroboration trumps alternatives; no mechanical defect. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. negligence proved; revision petition dismissed. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.06.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP) (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 12.08.2011
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.
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....
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 jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 limited to patent errors or perversity; cannot reappraise evidence to upset concurrent findings of rash negligent driving causing deaths in overloaded d....
High speed alone insufficient for rash/negligent driving proof; probable defence of evading sudden obstacle via justified deviation upheld acquittal on appeal.
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 limited to patent errors/perversity, not re-appreciating evidence; driving on wrong side of road negligence causing accident, upheld conviction but redu....
Revisional jurisdiction confines to patent defects or perversity, not reappreciating evidence; concurrent findings on driver's identity and negligence in reversing without safety check upheld, sustai....
Revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors or perversity; no re-appreciation of evidence; overtaking on wrong side while ignoring oncoming traffic constitutes rash negligence justifying convict....
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
