Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing S.S.R.N. Sarma And Anr. vs Registrar (Administration), High ... on 16 June, 1997

Shyam Lal And Ors. vs State Of H.P. on 1 January, 2002

In Sarma v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1993 Cri LJ 63 : (AIR 1993 SC 400), it was found on the facts of that case that the accused inflicted simple injuries on non vital parts of the deceased and it could not be said that object of accused was to kill deceased and, therefore, the accused were held liable to be convicted under Section 304-II/149, IPC and not under Section 302/149, IPC.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 48 - L S Panta - Full Document

Surinder Kumar vs State (Thru. Nct Of Delhi) on 22 January, 2010

Accused has been found guilty for the offence as seen above. Ld. MM has observed at page 12 of this impugned judgment that none of the prosecution witness had been cross examined by accused which led to an inference that he has admitted un-controverted and un-rebutted testimony to be correct. It is observed that PW-3 & PW-9 specifically deposed that accused appearing in this case was driving the offending vehicle at a fast speed which was rash and negligent driving and it was the cause of the accident. Ld. MM, has further found that since the vehicle of the victim namely Maruti Van was in a stationery condition when hit by the bus and the witnesses deposed that bus was driven in a very high speed, an inference of culpable rash and negligent could be drawn and support could be taken from Supreme Court judgment titled S. N. Sharma v State of AP, 1972,SC, 685. It has been further found that non examination of IO since caused no prejudice to the accused, he was liable to be convicted.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1