Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan vs Dev Kishan on 15 May, 1987

State vs (1) Kishan Dev @ Krishna on 2 November, 2011

4. One cycle repairer Sukh Shekhar Mehto was interrogated who State Vs. Kishan Dev 3 informed that accused was his uncle's son namely Arun's brother in law (sala) and used to live with him in the gali. On 18.11.2005 at 6.45 p.m, Ashok, Kishan Dev Lakhiya and Shree were passing through his house and he inquired from him because he knew from before that there was strained relations between Ashok and Kishan. Ashok informed him that Kishan wanted to talk about the difference between them and since he was taking the vehicle to the godown of Ashok Nagar, Jangi, they would talk with each other on the way. Ashok and the three went together. Kishan Dev lives in godown of Sunny at Mundka. Thereafter, he did not see Ashok. On the identification of Sukheshwar SI Sita Ram went to the godown of Sunny at Mundka and joined Kishan Dev at Eicher Canter DL-1LC-1448 and joined him in investigation and after inquiry he was arrested and informed that he along with Lakhiya and Shree got Ashok intoxicated by consumption of liquor and after that with the help of a rope Ashok was strangulated and with the help of Shree and Lakhiya, he took Ashok in the said Canter to PVC Market road which goes towards Jharoda. At a lonely place, they threw the dead body of Ashok on the road.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Kishun Dev Mehto on 14 March, 2011

Having heard the respective submissions and having gone through the record, I find force in the submissions of ld. defence counsel as the witness cannot escape the cross­examination by simply stating that whatever he / she wanted to depose has already been deposed by him / her in her earlier examination / cross­examination. The defence cannot be denied the opportunity to establish its defence. Even otherwise, merely because complainant / PW1 Shipra Mitra testified that the TSR was driven at a high speed, it cannot in itself be a conclusive proof of rash and negligent driving. Prosecution through the aid of other facts and circumstances of the case has to clearly bring on record that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the high speed of the vehicle driven by accused was sufficient to arrive at the only conclusion of rash and negligent driving by the accused. It came on record through the testimony of IO PW3 Abhishek Singh that three vehicles were involved in the accident and one of the drivers namely Shiv Kumar of Tata Indica Car informed that the driver of Honda City Car applied sudden breaks in order to save a cow which has come on the road. How the vehicles were positioned on the road, what was the distance between them and what was the traffic flow at the given point of time, no clue / help is offered by any of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant. Further, it also came on record through the testimony of complainant State vs. Kishun Dev Mehto. FIR No. 448/06, PS Pandav Nagar Page No. 10 of 11 herself that the Tata Indica Car also hit the Honda City Car from behind. If that was the case, then why the role of the other two drivers of the other two vehicles was not looked into, testimony of none of the prosecution witnesses including the IO is offering any help. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to bring home its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that on 22.09.06 it was the accused who by driving his TSR in a rash and negligent manner caused injury on the person of complainant / PW1 Shipra Mitra. Thus, the prosecution case against the accused fails.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1