Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Karnataka vs M/S Sathish Industries on 22 April, 2019

Selvamani vs The State Rep.By on 25 November, 2021

It appears to be incorrect and as stated above in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the evidence on record does not rule out the possibilities that the victim could have also been a reason for the accident. Further no tyre marks were also noted in the rough sketch. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned Judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Sathish, the phrase "high speed" is a relative term and the prosecution has not brought any other material on record to establish what is meant by high speed. Further the manner of the accident that is the Bike got hit in the Bumper, impacting the number plate and the injuries mentioned in the Post-mortem report, viz., there was a cut on the nose, a lacerated injury up to the eye-brow region and right upper side lip a cut, split and contusion over the left cheek leading to the internal head injury, all cumulatively shows that the speed cannot be projected as a case of culpable rashness and as the evidence on record does not rule out the action of the victim would also be the reason behind the event, the finding of the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court is by an interpretation of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/13 Crl.R.C.No.632 of 2014 statement of the witnesses and therefore, this is a fit case for interference by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

Mathiyazhagan vs State Through on 17 June, 2019

5.The petitioner's counsel is right in his contention that unless the essential ingredients of Section 304(A) IPC are established, one cannot mechanically invoke the legal maxim res ipsa loquitur and find the petitioner guilty of the offence. The decision reported in 2017-1-L.W.(Crl)160 (cited supra) refers to the decision of the Honorable Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Sathish reported in (1998) 8 SC 493. But a careful reading of all the decisions relied on by the petitioner's counsel indicates that the Courts have frowned upon invoking maxim only in the absence of any material on record. If there is any convincing material on record, then one can certainly call in aid the said legal maxim. In this case, the rough sketch has been marked as Ex.P.21. 5/10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C(MD).No.661 of 2010 A mere look at the rough sketch indicates that the lorry driven by the petitioner, after hitting the taxi, had come to a halt on the extreme right end of the road. In fact, Batlagundu-Nilakottai main road is 24 feet wide and there is a mud road on the side. The lorry had come to the extreme right-end and substantial portion of the lorry was found on the mud road. In the rough sketch in front of the lorry, the taxi is found.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

Sudhakar vs State Represented By on 22 September, 2023

It appears to be incorrect and as stated above in the Judgment of the Hon- ble Supreme Court of India, the evidence on record does not rule out the possibilities that the victim could have also been a reason for the accident. Further no tyre marks were also noted in the rough sketch. As held by the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned Judgment of State of Karnataka Vs. Sathish, the phrase “high speed“ is a relative term and the prosecution has not brought any other material on record to establish what is meant by high speed. Further the manner of the accident that is the Bike got hit in the Bumper, impacting the number plate and the injuries mentioned in the Post~mortem report, viz., there was a cut on the nose, a lacerated injury up to the eye~brow region and right upper side lip a cut, split and contusion over the left cheek leading to the internal head injury, all cumulatively shows that the speed cannot be projected as a case of culpable rashness and as the evidence on record does not rule out the action of the victim would also be the reason behind the event, the finding of the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court is by an interpretation of the statement of the witnesses and therefore, this is a fit case for interference by this Court.” 10 / 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1