IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ram Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 08.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (III), Kangra at Dharamshala camp at Palampur, (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (I), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (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 revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act).It was asserted that the informant Krishan Chand was returning to his home in the vehicle bearing registration number HP- 53-3822 on 9th February 2007. The accused was driving the vehicle. 20-21 people were travelling in the vehicle. The accused could not control the vehicle due to its high speed, and the vehicle fell into a gorge. The informant and other occupants su

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.
Res ipsa loquitur applies to unexplained vehicle deviation from road, shifting negligence burden to driver; revisional jurisdiction limited, no reappreciation absent perversity.
Revisional jurisdiction limited: no reappreciation of evidence to upset concurrent conviction for rash driving (wrong side/parking too close on slope causing grievous hurt) absent perversity or juris....
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 court cannot reappraise evidence unless perverse; wrong-side driving at high speed is negligent causing hurt under IPC 279/337/338; probation denied in road injury cases for deterrence.
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....
Revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent convictions under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 absent perversity; driving on wrong side of narrow curve without precautions constitutes....
Negligence in driving leading to injury constitutes a violation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, affirming strict liability for road traffic offenses.
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 narrowly limited against concurrent convictions; negligence proved by high-speed wrong-side driving causing vehicle to hit pedestrians, parapet and overturn, absent mechanical....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.