BRAHAM DASS versus STATE OF H.P.

BRAHAM DASS versus STATE OF H.P.

Even if prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show any negligence or rashness was involved, hence provisions of Section 279 and 304A IPC are not applicable in the facts of the case.

Parties
Appellant: Braham Dass; Respondent: State of Himachal Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction by High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; accused acquitted of charges.
Legal Topics
Indian Penal Code Section 279, Indian Penal Code Section 304 a, Rashness, Negligence
Criminal Law Indian Penal Code Section 279 Indian Penal Code Section 304 a Rashness Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Braham Dass

Appellant

State of Himachal Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is guilty of offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC based on evidence of rashness or negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Even if prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show any negligence or rashness was involved, hence provisions of Section 279 and 304A IPC are not applicable in the facts of the case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; accused acquitted of charges.

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • Accused appellant is acquitted of the charges.