It was averred that from the vehicle inspection report, no damage on the offending vehicle was found, which suggests that the vehicle was not in high speed or rush. The respondent "miserably failed" to establish said ingredients, the Petitioner argued. ![]() The petitioner was accused of driving in a rash and negligent manner, dashing the complainant's mother from his two wheeler.īefore the High Court, the Petitioner argued that both the courts below have erred in the matter of correctness inasmuch as a "simple accident" does not constitute main ingredients of Sections 279/ 338 IPC unless the vehicle is in high speed or is driven in a manner which is dangerous to the public. Sessions Judge, partially upholding the judgment passed Magistrate court which convicted the petitioner under under Sections 279 (Rash driving or riding on a public way) and 338 (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act. The observation was made while allowing a revision petition against a judgment passed by Addl. Suspicions, however, grave in nature, should not amount to prove." It is settled proposition of law that the charge framed against the accused-person has to be established and proved beyond any shadow of doubt. ![]() "The way the prosecution has projected the case and being found serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements in course of trial, it would be very difficult for this Court to believe the projected case against the petitioner.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |