Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 119 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 November, 1971

State vs Mayank Tyagi on 25 August, 2025

24. In the case at hand, there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner, except the bald statement made by PW-1 only when he was cross- examined on behalf of the State. Further, PW-1 had admitted that the car infront of him suddenly applied brakes and he had also applied brakes at that instance and there is nothing regarding the rash and negligent act of the accused present at this stage as mentioned by the complainant. Upon sudden application of brakes, the person who is in his lane cannot be said to be acting in rash and negligent manner and the same thing upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Mahadeo Hari Lokare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 758. PW-2 had totally turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-4 had recorded the statement of the injured and PW-3 had accompanied PW-4 during investigation. There was heavy traffic there and but none of them have been cited as witnesses in the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vadivel vs State Represented By on 11 July, 2022

The Postmortem of the death persons marked as Ex.P12 and Ex.P13, The final opinion - Ex.P.16 and Ex.P17 speaks about the injuries sustained by the accident victims. No doubt PW.8 had stated that the accident occurred when the driver tried to avoid a pedestrian. This is not corroborated by the other injured victims. Even if it is so, the judgment of Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. State of Maharashtra will not apply in the facts of the case. In the said judgment, the bus driver had killed the pedestrian who crossed suddenly. Whereas in this case, it is not the pedestrian, the victim, but 9 persons who were standing in the road margin either waiting for the bus or some other reason and it is to be noted that the accident has taken 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.494 of 2015 place near the bus stop. A diligent driver will take necessary care while negotiating the curve and when there is substantial crowd standing near the bus stop. In this case the absence of due diligence is already proved.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Maheswaran vs State Rep By on 28 January, 2013

15.The facts of the case cited supra, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The accident is admitted and the driver of the vehicle is admitted. When the bus was driven and somebody crosses the road suddenly, the accident takes place and the driving is beyond his control is the answer given by the revision petitioner. Further, from the evidence, we are not able to establish that there is rash and negligence on the part of the driver. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1972 Cri.L.J.49 (Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs. The State of Maharashtra) this Court feels that this is the fittest case where the Court has to interfere with the order passed by both the courts below as there is no clear cut evidence at all.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B Rajendran - Full Document

State vs . Jag Jeewan Singh on 20 January, 2010

10. The facts of the present case are similar to the Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs State of Maharashtra in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "If a pedestrian suddenly crosses a road without taking note of the approaching bus there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. The bus driver cannot save accident, however slowly he may be driving and therefore he cannot be held to be negligent in such a case.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Chand vs Of on 3 August, 2016

In Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if a person suddenly crosses the road the bus driver, however, slowly he may be driving, may not be in a position to save the accident and, therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the bus driver was negligent. In my considered view, this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of no assistance to the petitioner because it stands proved from the material placed on record by the prosecution in the present case that the accident had in fact resulted on account of the rash and negligent driving of the accused.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A M Goel - Full Document

Senthilkumar vs State on 24 September, 2019

No witnesses have spoken about the accident had happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner. Even though the accident is 3/9 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.397 of 2013 admitted, it does not mean that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The eye witnesses failed to mention the approximate speed of the truck, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of (i) Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in [(1972) 4 SCC 758] (ii) State of Karnataka Vs. Satish reported in [(1998) SCC 493] and (iii) Sekar Vs. State by S.I. of Police reported in 2001(2) MWN (Cr.)
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar vs The State Of Nct Delhi on 31 January, 2020

In case of Mahadeo Hari Lokre Vs The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 221, it is held as under:­ "Negligent driving along public way - If a pedestrain suddenly crosses a road without taking note of the approaching bus there is every possibility of his dashing against the bus without the driver becoming aware of it. The bus driver cannot save accident however slowely he may be driving and therefore he cannot be held to be negligent in such a case"
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No. 337/2013, Ps: New Ashok Nagar ... vs . Sanjay Kumar Yadav on 22 February, 2020

I get strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supereme Court of India in Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 221. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:­ "4. It must be said that there is really no good evidence on the side of the prosecution to show how exactly the accident took place..... If a person suddenly crosses the road the Bus Driver, however slowly may be driving may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the Bus Driver was negligent."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next