Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
STATE – Appellant
Versus
PRATEEK KATHPALIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. examining the establishment of driving liability requires proof of negligence beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 7) |
| 3. arguments presented by the parties. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's assessment of evidence and driving behavior. (Para 12 , 14 , 20 , 25) |
| 5. conclusion on the validity of the trial court's decision. (Para 26) |
| 6. compensation was deemed acceptable despite acquittal; context of injury acknowledged. (Para 30 , 32) |
2. The brief facts are that on 29.06.2011 at around 3:00 p.m., the complainant Lt. Col. Renu Kumari while riding her scooty bearing No. DL-4SAK-7160 was allegedly hit by a car bearing No. HR-26-BE-2510 being driven by the accused/respondent in a rash and negligent manner.
3. It is alleged that due to the impact, the complainant was thrown off from her scooty and sustained grievous injuries on her left shoulder and knee, whereafter, the complainant was taken to Army Base Hospital.
4. The police after recording the statement of the complainant, registered FIR No. 202/2011 under Sections 279 /337 of the IPC .
5. Subsequently, the accused/respondent was arrested in the present case. The le
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
