Back
M. A. CHOWDHARY
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment/order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge) Ramnagar [‘Trial Court”], in case No.121/2013 titled ‘State of J&K v. Vijay Kumar’, whereby the petitioner was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 RPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- and simple imprisonment of two months and fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, as upheld by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur [“Appellate Court”] vide judgment dated 25.07.2017, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner/convict against his conviction and sentence was dismissed, the petitioner/convict has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court as upheld by the Appellate Court.
2. The facts leading to the filing of present revision petition in nutshell are as under:
2.1 That the appellant was charged and tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A RPC; the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence that had been adduced before it by the pr
The judgment emphasized the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction, the importance of evaluating evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the prosecution's case despit....
Revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute trial court findings unless shown to be perverse or erroneous.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence, in determining negligence and liability in cases of accidents resulting ....
The main legal point established is that the conviction for rash and negligent driving was upheld based on the evidence of injured witnesses and documentary evidence, while the offence under Section ....
Elapse of time is not a ground to trivialize seriousness of a crime committed by offender and to take a lenient view in matter of punishment.
The court upheld the conviction for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC, affirming that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of an identification p....
Concurrent findings of guilty must be upheld unless glaring defects are present or a miscarriage of justice occurs; professional drivers may not qualify for probation under Section 304-A IPC.
The court affirmed the conviction for rash driving based on sufficient evidence, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
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
