Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Sarwan Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial acquitted accused of negligent driving. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. state challenges acquittal; defence upholds. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. interfere only if acquittal patently perverse. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. s.313 statement corroborates prosecution evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. pw2 testimony contradictory and unreliable. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. vague high speed; witness lacks credibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. injuries support defence fall version. (Para 28) |
| 8. trial view reasonable; appeal dismissed. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.08.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). (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 appeal are that the poli
Appellate court upholds acquittal unless patently perverse or ignores material evidence; trial court's reasonable assessment of unreliable witnesses, vague high speed, and consistent defense version ....
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....
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....
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 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....
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.
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence proving negligence or recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt.
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....
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....
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
