Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rash negligent driving caused injuries and death (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. dispute over driver identity and negligence proof (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. revisional jurisdiction limited to patent errors (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. occupants identify accused as negligent driver (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 28) |
| 5. hostile witness impeached by inconsistencies (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. contradictions discredit witness entirely (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. eyewitness identification reliable post-trauma (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. no defect; site confirms vehicle loss control (Para 33 , 34) |
| 9. wrong-side driving constitutes negligence (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. medical evidence supports accident causation (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 11. deterrent sentence required absent perversity (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 12. concurrent conviction findings upheld (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 5.12.2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 27.2.2009 and order of sentenc
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....
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....
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the inapplicability of probation for serious traffic offences.
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....
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....
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.
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 limited; cannot re-appreciate evidence or upset concurrent findings on rash negligent driving causing death absent perversity; wrong side driving negligence per road rules; 31....
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 under CrPC limits High Court to correcting patent defects or perversity; cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent conviction absent jurisdictional error or miscarriage....
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
