Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
State vs . Desh Raj on 21 September, 2013 cites

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Desh Raj on 23 November, 2006

15. The prosecution's case is that on the aforesaid date, time and place of incident, accused was found driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and State Vs. Desh Raj 4/5 FIR no. 234/08 caused the death of Parminder. There is only one public witness namely Sh. Krishna Sharma which has been found mentioned in the list of witnesses. However, as per his statement u/s 161 of the Code he reached the spot after the accident has already been caused. He is claimed to have not witnessed the accident in question. He has not stated anything about the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. Testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution cannot form the basis of conviction of the accused. Accused has conceded the genuineness of certain documents but that also by itself is not sufficient to warrant his conviction. Prosecution has to prove rashness or negligence on the part of the accused by adducing cogent evidence. Rashness or negligence cannot be presumed just because an accident did occur resulting in an injury or death. Therefore, it is said that there is no harm in coming to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 129 - Full Document

Mr. Dharam Pal Mehra vs The Adm, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 January, 2009

In a case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is held that " in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date"
Central Information Commission Cites 0 - Cited by 390 - Full Document
1