Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.16 seconds)
3.Title State vs . Mohd. Iqbal Parvej on 5 December, 2012 cites

Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984

9. Here it would be appropriate to refer the case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein it was observed as under:­ " In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case FIR no. 348/00 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Parvej Page no. 7 of 28 beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 3880 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Vaikuntam Chandrappa And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 14 August, 1959

In Vaikuntam Chandrappa and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1960 SC 1340. The Hon'ble Apex court observed that the statement of the witness in the court is substantive piece of evidence but the purpose of TIP is to test that substantive piece of evidence and the safest rule is on oath testimony of the witness in the court regarding the identity of the accused who is stranger to the witness.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 160 - Full Document

Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 March, 1966

Similarly in the case of Ronny @ Ronald James alvaris and others v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 Cri.L.J. 1638 it was held that where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had the opportunity to notice the distinctive feature of the accused which rends credence ssurance to his testimony in the court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 552 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Rajesh Govind Jagesha vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 November, 1999

In the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 Cri.L.J. 380 it was laid down that the absence of the TIP may not be fatal if the accused is sufficiently described in the complaint which leaves no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his involvement or the accused is arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence and in either eventuality the evidence of a witness identifying the accused for the first time in court can form the basis for conviction without the same being corroborated by any other evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussion coupled with the fact that the complainant in his complaint Ex. PW2/A had specifically named the name, parentage and the address of the accused coupled with the identification of the accused in the court by the injured, further coupled with the admission of the accused in his statement u/s 281/313 Cr.P.C. and the deposition of DW­1 Anwar Alam. In my opnion the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 177 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

22. Ld. Counsel for the accused had also argued that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle and the injured was not hit by his scooter but by a car of unknown person. The aforesaid defence of the accused seems to be an after thought as no suggestion regarding the same was put to the complainant PW­2 during his cross examination in the court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajjan FIR no. 348/00 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Parvej Page no. 15 of 28 Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & others v. State of Haryana 2011 AIR (SC) 2552 have observed that the accused cannot raise an altogether new defence in the final arguments without cross examining the witnesses on the relevant aspect and without giving an opportunity to the witnesses to explain the same. The PW­2 complainant Harish was cross examined at length but no suggestion regarding the same was put to him. In view of the same I do not find any force in the aforesaid arguments of the Ld. Defence Counsel .
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 251 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ku.Meghna Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2012

26. The same was again approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Meghna Singh vs. State 2012 LE (DEL) 254 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabhakaran v. State of Kerela AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2376 "....Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 30 January, 1981

In the matter of Chaman Lal Vs State AIR 1954, ALL 186, it was observed that Rashness and negligence are not the same things. Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness. There are degrees of negligence and rashness and in order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence, one must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing of such an act with recklessness and indifference to its consequences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 52 - S M Ali - Full Document

Niranjan Singh vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 4 September, 1996

In Niranjan Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration), 1997 Cri LJ 336, it was observed that the main criteria for deciding whether the driving which lead to the accident was rash and negligent is not only speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligations of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to harmful consequences resulting from it. In case of this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has prove that :­
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 203 - M S Siddiqui - Full Document
1   2 Next