Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)

State Nct Of Delhi vs Surender Kumar Jain on 10 March, 2014

In the statement under Section 281 Cr.P.C by the accused, it has not been disputed by the accused that while unloading his gun, the same went off and he was injured and the defence of the accused is that he has taken all due care and was not rash and negligent and he was inside his room in his house and no one else was there. But even if we consider the statement of the accused as true then also it is quite clear that due to the said act, the accused got injured by gun shot injury in his leg and therefore, his said act was of such a nature so as to endanger the human life and as far as rash and negligence is concerned, the act i.e the accidental fire, itself shows that the accused acted in a rash and negligent manner with his revolver due to which it fired accidentally and it is not the defence of the accused that the revolver has fired due to some mechanical default in the same and in the examination of PW5 i.e., V.R.Anand, Assistt. Director (Ballistic) FSL Rohini, it was stated by him that the revolver was in working condition and test fires were conducted successfully and it further corroborates that the revolver was in working condition and therefore, it becomes clear that the accused was rash and negligent State Vs. Surender Kumar FIR No.200/16 7/8 while unloading the same due to which it got fired accidentally and injured the accused himself and it could have also injured any other person if anybody was present near the place of the incident.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - I Kaur - Full Document
1