#traffic offences

Karnataka High Court rules that eyewitness testimony from relatives of the deceased is valid under Sections 279 and 304A IPC if found credible and uncontradicted, even without corroboration. The accused's silence during Section 313 CrPC examination further strengthened the prosecution's case, setting a precedent for traffic accident convictions based on interested witness accounts.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that genuine compromise between parties in non-heinous traffic offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC justifies quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS, provided public interest is not compromised. This sets a precedent for resolving minor traffic disputes through mutual settlement without prolonged litigation.