Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1571 (1.99 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Subhan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 September, 2006

State vs Mahesh Kumar on 25 September, 2023

27. Further, in accident cases, the site plan assumes significance in understanding the surrounding circumstances, inter- se position of the parties on the road etc. The site plan Ex. PW9/B in this case only depicts point A as the point at which the accident happened. However, it does not mention the distance between the position of the eyewitness/PW1 Mahender and the spot of accident. In fact, the position of the eyewitness/PW1 is not at all mentioned in the site plan. The IO has admitted in the cross-examination that the position of eyewitness PW Mahender is not reflected in the site plan. The position of the eyewitness ought to have been mentioned in the site plan to establish his presence at the spot and to assist the court in ascertaining whether the eyewitness was in a position to Digitally signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2023.09.25 16:48:44 +0530 Cr. Case No.66273/2016 State vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 15 of 17 view the occurrence properly. Further, the position at which the offending vehicle finally came to rest after the collision has not been marked in the site plan. The said omission on behalf of the IO is substantial and is in direction contravention of the directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1132:
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Sarafat Khan on 3 May, 2025

30. The prosecution further failed to examine any other public witness, though, PW1 had testified that the public witnesses were present at the spot, who helped the deceased in the aftermath of the accident. The prosecution also failed to comply with the guidelines issued by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Judgment dated 27.09.2006 i.e. Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2007 CRLJ 1089), wherein it has been laid down in detail that it is the responsibility of the investigating officer to prove the exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles came to rest after the collision. It was further held that the observations of the IO with regard to the length of the tyre skid FIR No. 400/2011 State Vs. Sharafat Khan Page 16 of 19 mark of the vehicle involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. The mechanical inspection reports should also indicate whether the vehicles were mechanically sound prior to the accident to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or mechanical failure beyond human control. It was further held that the path of movement of the vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity or doubt. The driver of the vehicle should also be subjected to tests to reveal whether he had consumed any intoxicant or not. In the present case, the IO has failed to state the approximate speed of offending vehicle at the time of the accident, speed limit of the road, or the manner in which the traffic was moving and about the status of traffic signal etc. The prosecution further failed to prove the distance at which the offending vehicle was being driven and the direction or the manner in which it had hit the deceased. It also further failed to establish whether or not there were any other vehicle lying on the road at the time of the accident or even its photographs to support its case.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs State on 25 September, 2019

In this regard, reference can be made to Abdul Subhan v. State (NCT of Delhi), ILR (2006) II Delhi 882, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held, "7. At the outset I would like to observe that I am appalled by the investigation, or shall I say the lack of it, that was carried out in this particular case. I may also note that I am of the view that the testimony of PW 3 head constable Munim Dutt, even if taken to be entirely true only leads to the conclusion that the vehicle driven by the present petitioner was being driven at a high-speed. This in itself does not mean that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently. Furthermore, the testimony of PW 3 leads to ambiguities and doubts and, I am afraid, my conscience does not permit me to convict a person under Section 279/304A IPC on the nature and degree of evidence that is on record in this case. There are so many questions which remain unanswered. What is meant by high-speed? Were the traffic lights working or not? Why was the investigating officer not examined? Why were photographs not taken? Why is there no evidence with regard to tyre skid marks? Why was the site plan not exhibited? There are questions which remain unanswered pertaining to the motorcyclist who unfortunately lost his life in this incident.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Manje on 23 March, 2026

21. Further, in accident cases, the site plan assumes significance in understanding the surrounding circumstances, inter-se position of the parties on the road etc. The site plan Ex. PW5/A in this case only depicts point A as the point at which the accident happened. However, it does not mention the distance between the position of the eyewitness/PW Bhagwan Dass and the spot of Digitally signed 10 / 12 Akhansha by Akhansha Gautam Gautam Date: 2026.03.23 15:51:09 +0530 accident. In fact, the position of the eyewitness is not at all mentioned in the site plan. The position of the eyewitness ought to have been mentioned in the site plan to establish his presence at the spot and to assist the court in ascertaining whether the eyewitness was in a position to view the occurrence properly. Further, the position at which the offending vehicle finally came to rest after the collision has not been marked in the site plan. The said omission on behalf of the IO is substantial and is in direction contravention of the directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1132:
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next