Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tractor negligently hit motorcycle causing death, injuries. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution evidence through witnesses; accused denies fault. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. lower courts found rash driving on wrong side. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. debate on negligence proof, speed, sentence excessiveness. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited; no re-appreciation of evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. site plan, photos confirm tractor on wrong side. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. wrong-side driving and skid marks prove negligence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. mechanical defect post-accident not causative; brakes unused. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 9. discredited hostile witness testimony wholly discarded. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. injuries proved; no-insurance violates mv act. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 11. ipc convictions for rash/negligent driving upheld. (Para 39) |
| 12. 304a sentence reduced to 18 months sans aggravators. (Para 40) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction and
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 limited to perversity; lower courts erred ignoring mechanical reports' inconsistencies on vehicle damage and witness speed contradiction, creating reasonable doubt on rash dri....
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; no interference with concurrent conviction for rash driving on wrong side causing deaths absent perversity, despite vehicle registration ambiguity, as eyewitnesses re....
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....
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.
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 under CrPC limits High Court to correcting patent defects or perversity; cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent conviction absent jurisdictional error or miscarriage....
Negligence in driving leading to injury constitutes a violation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, affirming strict liability for road traffic offenses.
The revisional court exercises limited jurisdiction, focusing only on clear legal errors while upholding convictions based on substantial evidence of negligence.
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
