Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State By The Inspector Of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.463 of 2011 was convicted by the Trial Court by judgment dated 09.06.2017 and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC . Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.134 of 2017. The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court by judgment dated 19.09.2018. Against which, the present revision is filed.
2. The gist of the case is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was riding his two wheeler Bajaj Caliber bearing registration No.TN-38-U-0040 on 15.01.2010 at about 12.45 p.m. in Coimbatore-Mettupalayam road proceeding from North to South near Ramakrishna English School with the deceased Rangasamy as pillion rider, at that time, a Tata lorry bearing registration No.-TN-33-N-2939 driven by the peti
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with rashness or negligence; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the petitioner.
The main legal point established is the duty of care expected from drivers, the distinction between rashness and negligence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the allegations be....
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner acted with rashness or negligence, leading to the acquittal.
Court found insufficient evidence of negligence in driving, leading to reversal of conviction.
Accusation of negligence requires proof of rash and negligent driving; high speed alone does not establish guilt in criminal law.
Criminal liability for negligence requires clear evidence of rashness; mere occurrence of an accident does not imply guilt.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in a rash and negligent manner to secure a conviction under IPC sections 279 and 304(A); insufficient evidence can lead t....
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
