Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rajinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of truck accident investigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. lower courts' convictions and partial appeal success (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. parties contend on evidence and res ipsa loquitur (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. limited scope of revisional jurisdiction without perversity (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. presumption accused drove truck; accident proved (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. res ipsa loquitur infers negligence from accident (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. rejected mechanical defect; negligence unrefuted (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. deterrent sentence adequate for rash driving (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. revision dismissed upholding convictions (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., were partly upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned T
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.
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....
The court reaffirmed that driving under the influence leading to accident constitutes negligence, with the burden on the accused to explain circumstances of the incident.
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 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 court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent convictions under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 absent perversity; driving on wrong side of narrow curve without precautions constitutes....
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....
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
