Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Harminder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tractor negligently hit car on wrong side. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial court convicted for rash negligent driving. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. appellate court upheld negligence via site plan. (Para 7) |
| 4. evidence misappreciated; mechanical report exonerates. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 5. revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity correction. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. site plan proves wrong-side driving negligence. (Para 11) |
| 7. damage reports contradict wrong-side driving claim. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. ignored evidence creates reasonable doubt for acquittal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. revision allowed; accused acquitted under section 279. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Camp at Bilsapur) (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2013 and order of sentence dated 07.09.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, 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 C
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 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; no interference with concurrent conviction for rash driving on wrong side causing deaths absent perversity, despite vehicle registration ambiguity, as eyewitnesses re....
Negligence in driving leading to injury constitutes a violation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, affirming strict liability for road traffic offenses.
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....
Res ipsa loquitur applies to unexplained vehicle deviation from road, shifting negligence burden to driver; revisional jurisdiction limited, no reappreciation absent perversity.
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.
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....
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....
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
