Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dilbag Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304AA of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced as under:-
| Sections | Sentences |
| 279 of IPC | The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. |
| 304-AA of IPC | The accused was sentenced to undergo rigours imprisonment for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. |
| It was ordered that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. |
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-AA of the IPC. It was asserted that information was received in the Polic
The court concluded that to convict under Section 304AA, evidence must prove intoxication exceeding permissible limits; negligence alone, without the requisite level of intoxication, can result in co....
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.
Criminal negligence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and mere occurrence of an accident does not presume rashness or negligence.
The absence of key eyewitness testimony undermines the prosecution's case on charges of rash and negligent driving, necessitating acquittal.
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.
Negligence in driving leading to injury constitutes a violation under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, affirming strict liability for road traffic offenses.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's driving was rash or negligent to uphold a conviction under Section 304(A) IPC.
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
