Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Chauhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution alleged car negligence hit auto causing injuries. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial court acquitted due to witness contradictions. (Para 6) |
| 3. state argues trial ignored consistent negligence testimonies. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. defence urges no interference with reasonable acquittal. (Para 10) |
| 5. interfere with acquittal only if perverse or unreasonable. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. site plan shows auto on wrong road side. (Para 14) |
| 7. wrong-side driving constitutes per se negligence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. post-accident photos do not prove negligence. (Para 18) |
| 9. witnesses cannot opine on driver's negligence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 10. high speed requires specific evidence beyond vague terms. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 11. no proven negligence warrants upholding acquittal. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 12. appeal dismissed; bail bonds directed. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.04.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rampur Bushahar, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the accused (respondent before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable
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....
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....
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.
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....
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....
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.
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....
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....
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
