Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Tukaram Sitaram Gore vs State on 27 February, 1970

State Of H.P vs Amar Nath on 21 November, 2018

In Tukaram Sitaram Gore vs. State AIR 1971 Bombay 164, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has held that high speed of a motor vehicle does not by itself prove rashness or negligence of driver. It was further held that there can be no presumption of negligence from the mere fact that a man is knocked down and killed by a motorist. Relevant observations read as under:-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Rajinder Kumar vs State on 2 March, 2013

In Tukaram Sitaram's case (Supra), it was observed as under:­ "In order to hold accused liable under Section 304A there must be evidence not only of rashness or negligence acceptable to Court but also that the rash or negligent act of accused was the proximate cause of death and that there must be a direct nexus between the death of a person and rash or negligent act of accused."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Uttam on 27 January, 2012

15. It is well settled law that the rashness or negligence cannot be presumed against the driver. The prosecution must prove the rash or negligent driving of the accused as well as the direct nexus between the death of deceased and rash or negligent driving of the accused for holding him guilty U/Sec.279/304­A IPC. The PW­6 has deposed that the offending bus was at a very fast speed. But he could not tell about the exact speed of the offending bus. He has simply stated that the bus was at a very fast speed. The manner of driving of the accused has not been explained by him as to how he was rash or negligent in his driving. It is settled law that mere fast speed in itself is not the conclusive proof of the guilt of accused. It has been held in Tukaram Sitaram Gore Vs. State, 1971 Cri.L.J. 767 that the high speed of the motor vehicle does not by itself prove rashness or negligence of the driver. It has been further held that there can be no presumption of negligence from the mere fact that a man is knocked down and killed by the motorist. There must be evidence of rashness or negligence. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution which has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused. There can be no burden on an accused to prove that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. It is for the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt and the ingredients necessary to show that a particular offence was committed must be made out by the evidence adduced in prosecution. There is no initial burden on the accused to prove his innocence. Certainly there is no presumption that a man drove a lorry in a rash or negligent manner, merely because there was an accident as there could be many more reasons of the accident. Sec.304­A IPC is no exception to the general principle that the innocence of a person has to be assumed till guilt is established.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rajni on 17 December, 2012

Relevance in this regard can also be placed upon Tukaram Sitaram Gore vs. State AIR 1971 Bombay 164 (V 58 C 28) wherein stated :­ " In running down cases the death of the pedestrian may very well be purely accidental, or may be due to his own negligence. To presume that because a pedestrian has been knocked down and has died, the driver of the motor vehicle that knocked him down must be guilty of rashness or negligence overlooks these two possibilities."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

____________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 28 June, 2016

In Tukaram Sitaram Gore vs. State AIR 1971 Bombay 164, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has held that high speed of a motor vehicle does not by itself prove rashness or negligence of driver. It was further held that there can be no ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:41:40 :::HCHP 6 presumption of negligence from the mere fact that a man is knocked .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 6 April, 2018

Ld. counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on  judgment   titled   as   "Tukaram   Sitaram   Gore   v.   State"   AIR   1971  Bombay 164 in para no. 6 of the judgment, it is held that in order to  hold accused liable under Section 304­A there must be evidence  not only of rashness or negligence acceptable to Court but  also  that the rash or negligent act of accused was the proximate cause  of death and that there must be a direct nexus between the death  of a person and rash or negligent act of accused.  In the present case  the accused at the red light did not stop the vehicle and struck against  one   bicycle,   one   santro   car   bearing   no.   DL7CA­9104,   two   TSR(s)  bearing   No.   DL1RD­3413   and   DL1RH­1306,   one   Maruti   Zen     No.  DL4CR­9155,  one   Tata   407   No.   D11LE­4647,   two  motorcycles   No.  DL4SAD­5041   and   DL6SL­4401,   two   scooters   No.   DDE­2448   and  DL4SL­7710   and   one   Vikram     Tempo   No.   DL1L­B­5441.   Thus,  accused was negligent in driving the vehicle.   Thus, this judgment is  not helpful to the appellant.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rakesh Kumar Singh on 21 December, 2013

It has been held in Tukaram Sitaram Gore Vs. State, 1971 Cri.L.J. 767 that the high speed of the motor vehicle does not by itself prove rashness or negligence of the driver. It has been further held that there can be no presumption of negligence from the mere fact that a man is knocked down by the motorist. There must be evidence of rashness or negligence. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is the prosecution which has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the accused. There can be no burden on an accused to prove that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. It is for the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt and the ingredients necessary to show that a particular offence was committed must be made out by the evidence adduced in prosecution. There is no initial burden on the accused to prove his innocence.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next