State v. Anil Kaushik
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Delhi granted leave to appeal filed by the State under Section 378(3) CrPC against an order of acquittal of the respondent for vehicular accident offenses, noting discrepancies in witness testimony and the Mechanical Inspection Report.
What did the court decide?
Leave to appeal against the acquittal order dated 20.01.2020 is allowed. The Registry is directed to assign number to the Appeal.
What the court decided
$~4
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CRL.L.P. 158/2021
STATE
ANIL KAUSHIK
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, Ld. APP for State with SI Suresh Bhatia P.S. Timarpur. versus .....Respondent
versus
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
O R D E R % 05.03.2025 CRL.L.P. 158/2021
- A Petition under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking Leave to grant Appeal against the Judgment dated 20.01.2020 vide which the learned M.M has acquitted the Respondent in FIR No.231/2007 under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC Police Station Timarpur.
- It is submitted that there are as many as six public witnesses who have all deposed about the manner of accident, whereby the RTV vehicle had climbed over the divider and turned turtle resulting in injuries and death of the passengers travelling in the Bus. It was suggested to the witnesses that the accident happened due to tyre burst, but the Mechanical Inspection Report is silent about there being any tyre burst. For the grounds stated in the Appeal, the Leave to Appeal is hereby allowed.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order of acquittal on stated grounds.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
State
- respondent
Anil Kaushik
Coram
Neena Bansal Krishna
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court