STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) vs ASHOK KUMAR(Not Applicable) — CR.A/178/2015
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 25th March 2026.
CNR: HPHC010038472015
Filing Number
CR.A/20066/2015
Filing Date
09-Feb-2015
Registration No
CR.A/178/2015
Registration Date
16-May-2015
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Bench Type
Single
Category
CRIMINAL APPEAL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL FOR OFFENCES UNDER IPC ( 2 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 14-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)
Adv. AG
Respondent(s)
-
1.ASHOK KUMAR(Not Applicable)
Adv. RESPONDENT 1123
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's appeal against Ashok Kumar's acquittal in a fatal hit-and-run case. The court found that the trial judge took a reasonable view based on available evidence: witness testimonies were insufficient (relying only on vague "high speed" claims without specifics), key witnesses had left the scene before the accident, and the accused's confessional statement to police was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that appellate courts cannot interfere with reasonable acquittal verdicts unless they are patently perverse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Dec-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
19-Dec-2025
Hearing
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla
-
15-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
23-Jul-2015
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Feb-2015
Case filed
Registration No. CR.A/178/2015
Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's appeal against Ashok Kumar's acquittal in a fatal hit-and-run case. The court found that the trial judge took a reasonable view based on available evidence: witness testimonies were insufficient (relying only on vague "high speed" claims without specifics), key witnesses had left the scene before the accident, and the accused's confessional statement to police was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that appellate courts cannot interfere with reasonable acquittal verdicts unless they are patently perverse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts