Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 893 (2.01 seconds)Documents citing
Syad Akbar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 1979
State Of H.P vs Krishan Lal on 16 September, 2024
Therefore, Syad Akbar (supra) is not applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
Sweety Garg vs . Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 1 Of 40 on 28 April, 2022
9.32 In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the decided cases of Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan(supra) and Sayad
Akbar vs. State of Karnataka(supra) as well as in the light of opinion expressed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs
Gita Bindal & Ors.(supra), it can be safely concluded that although in certain cases
there may be no eye witness available to depose on the factum of negligence of the
driver of the offending vehicle, however, the accident speaks for itself and appears to
have occurred in such a manner that it could not have happened except for the
reason of negligence of the driver under whose management and care the vehicle
was being plied on the road at the time of occurrence of the alleged accident. In the
present case, victim Sweety Garg was travelling in a Tempo Traveller bearing
registration No.DL1VC2443 which had got rammed into the back side of an
unknown truck which was being plied on the same road. It is the defence of R1 that
a Neel Gaye had come in front of his vehicle due to which he had lost control over his
tempo and had struck the same against a truck travelling ahead of his own tempo,
however a mere look at the photographs of the offending vehicle reveal that it had
got badly damaged and its front body was broken to such an extent that the steering
wheel and front seats of the said tempo traveller had become exposed. The impact
of collision with the truck was such that the accident could not have occurred unless
the offending vehicle was being driven at an excessive speed, in a rash and
negligent manner. Entire front body and bonnet of the offending vehicle had got
damaged due to high force impact sustained by the offending vehicle which could not
have happened without the negligence or extremely high speed driving of the
Sweety Garg Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 24 of 40
Sweety Garg Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 25 of 40
offending vehicle by its driver. Hence, even if the two eye witnesses travelling in the
offending vehicle, namely, PW1 Sweety Garg and PW4 Rajiv Aggarwal had
categorically stated that they were sleeping at the time of the occurrence of the case
accident, then also, there is ample evidence against the driver of the offending
vehicle in the form of photographs of the offending vehicle Ex.PW4/3 which speak
volumes about the manner in which offending vehicle was being driven and the high
speed impact sustained by the vehicle in question when it had got rammed into the
back side of another vehicle which was not negligent at all.
Prabha Trehan And Ors vs Mejor Singh And Ors on 27 October, 2023
12.13 In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the decided cases of Ravi Kapur vs State Of
Rajasthan(supra) and Sayad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka(supra) as well
as in the light of opinion expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the
decided cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gita Bindal & Ors.
(supra), it can be safely concluded that although in certain cases there may
be no reliable eye witness available to depose on the factum of negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle, however, the accident speaks for itself
and appears to have occurred in such a manner that it could not have
happened except for the reason of negligence of the driver under whose
management and care the vehicle was being plied on the road at the time of
occurrence of the alleged accident.
Shourya Khosla vs Mejor Singh on 27 October, 2023
Shourya Khosla Vs. Major Singh
Shourya Khosla Vs. Major Singh 57
12.13 In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the decided cases of Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan(supra) and Sayad
Akbar vs. State of Karnataka(supra) as well as in the light of opinion expressed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs
Gita Bindal & Ors.(supra), it can be safely concluded that although in certain cases
there may be no reliable eye witness available to depose on the factum of negligence
of the driver of the offending vehicle, however, the accident speaks for itself and
appears to have occurred in such a manner that it could not have happened except for
the reason of negligence of the driver under whose management and care the vehicle
was being plied on the road at the time of occurrence of the alleged accident.
12.14 In the present case also, the vehicle of the victims had got rammed into the
back side of a Tata Tempo truck and had got damaged to such an extent that the front
body of the car of the victims had gone underneath the offending tempo and bonnet
as well as the steering wheel and front seats of the said car had got completely
crushed whereas the back wind screen of the car in question had been completely
damaged thereby exposing back seat due to the impact of collision as is reflected
from the photographs Ex.PW5/R3W1/1 to 7. The condition of the vehicle of the
victims is sufficient to establish that it had struck against a stationary vehicle and not
rammed into a moving vehicle. Therefore, defence propounded by the respondent to
the effect that the offending tempo was moving at speed of 40 kmph stands
demolished from the fact that condition of the car of the victims was such that no
prudent person would arrive at a finding to the effect that the said car had collided
against a moving vehicle. Even if the car of the victims was descending from a
flyover at a very high speed, then also the same would not have gone underneath the
offending tempo and got completely crushed under its body if the said tempo was in
moving condition.
Baby Aakshi Garg vs . Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 1 Of 47 on 28 April, 2022
9.32 In the light of afore cited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the decided cases of Ravi Kapur vs State Of Rajasthan(supra) and
Sayad Akbar vs. State of Karnataka(supra) as well as in the light of opinion
expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the decided cases of National
Baby Aakshi Garg Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 27 of 47
Baby Aakshi Garg Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 28 of 47
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gita Bindal & Ors.(supra), it can be safely concluded
that although in certain cases there may be no eye witness available to depose
on the factum of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, however, the
accident speaks for itself and appears to have occurred in such a manner that it
could not have happened except for the reason of negligence of the driver under
whose management and care the vehicle was being plied on the road at the time
of occurrence of the alleged accident. In the present case, victim Aakshi Garg
was travelling in a Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.DL1VC2443 which
had got rammed into the back side of an unknown truck which was being plied
on the same road. It is the defence of R1 that a Neel Gaye had come in front of
his vehicle due to which he had lost control over his tempo and had struck the
same against a truck travelling ahead of his own tempo, however a mere look at
the photographs of the offending vehicle reveal that it had got badly damaged
and its front body was broken to such an extent that the steering wheel and front
seats of the said tempo traveller had become exposed. The impact of collision
with the truck was such that the accident could not have occurred unless the
offending vehicle was being driven at an excessive speed, in a rash and
negligent manner. Entire front body and bonnet of the offending vehicle had got
damaged due to high force impact sustained by the offending vehicle which
could not have happened without the negligence or extremely high speed driving
of the offending vehicle by its driver. Hence, even if the two eye witnesses
travelling in the offending vehicle, namely, PW1 Sweety Garg and PW4 Rajiv
Aggarwal had categorically stated that they were sleeping at the time of the
occurrence of the case accident, then also, there is ample evidence against the
driver of the offending vehicle in the form of photographs of the offending vehicle
Ex.PW4/3 which speak volumes about the manner in which offending vehicle
was being driven and the high speed impact sustained by the vehicle in question
Baby Aakshi Garg Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 28 of 47
Baby Aakshi Garg Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Page 29 of 47
when it had got rammed into the back side of another vehicle which was not
negligent at all.
Ku. Shiva Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2022
[Vide Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana; Rabindra Kumar
Dey v. State of Orissa; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka and
Khujji v. State of M.P. (SCC p. 635, para 6).]
Rustam Singh vs The State Of M.P. on 31 October, 2022
"6. ... the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be
rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to
treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The
evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced
or washed off the record altogether but the same can be
accepted to the extent their version is found to be
dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof." (Vide
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC
389, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, (1976) 4
SCC 233, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, (1980) 1
SCC 30 and Khujji v. State of M.P., (1991) 3 SCC 627,
SCC p. 635, para 6.)
The Managing Director vs Tmt.T.Saraswathi on 11 December, 2012
There is absolutely no quarrel over the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. But, what has to be seen in the present case is whether the ratio of the Supreme Court decision would apply.
The Managing Director vs Roja on 14 June, 2017
There is absolutely no quarrel over the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court. But, what has to be seen in the present case is whether the ratio of the Supreme Court decision would apply.