Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)The State Of Karnataka vs M/S Sathish Industries on 22 April, 2019
It appears to be incorrect and as stated above in the Judgment of the Hon-
ble Supreme Court of India, the evidence on record does not rule out the
possibilities that the victim could have also been a reason for the accident.
Further no tyre marks were also noted in the rough sketch. As held by the
Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned Judgment of State
of Karnataka Vs. Sathish, the phrase “high speed“ is a relative term and
the prosecution has not brought any other material on record to establish
what is meant by high speed. Further the manner of the accident that is the
Bike got hit in the Bumper, impacting the number plate and the injuries
mentioned in the Post~mortem report, viz., there was a cut on the nose, a
lacerated injury up to the eye~brow region and right upper side lip a cut,
split and contusion over the left cheek leading to the internal head injury,
all cumulatively shows that the speed cannot be projected as a case of
culpable rashness and as the evidence on record does not rule out the
action of the victim would also be the reason behind the event, the finding
of the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court is by an
interpretation of the statement of the witnesses and therefore, this is a fit
case for interference by this Court.”
10 / 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
L.Selvamani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 October, 2018
16.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Selvamani v. State reported in 2022-1-
L.W. (Crl.) 126, wherein this Court in para no.13 held as follows:-
C.H.Kesava vs State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2020
17.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment
of this Court in the case of C.H.Kesava v. State of Kerala in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.219 of
2012, wherein this Court in para no.20 held as follows:-
M.R.Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2006
In this context, it is relevant to quote a decision of this Court
in Thomas M.R. v. State of Kerala [2015 KHC 889] wherein while dealing
with Sections 279 and 304A IPC it has been held that in a case of rash and
negligent driving, the duty of the prosecution does not end by alleging the
rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. It must also be proved that
the rashness and negligence was responsible for the accident and the
consequent injury or death. It is also held that there is no presumption of
negligence under Section 304A IPC from the mere fact that a man is
knocked down and killed by a motorist. It is further held that the
presumption of law is that a person is innocent unless and until his guilt is
proved and simply because an accident occurred which resulted in injury or
death to a pedestrian or cycle rider, it cannot be taken for granted that the
driver of the vehicle involved in the incident is guilty of the crime. So the
principles laid down in the above decision is squarely applicable to the case
in hand. Both the courts below by improper appreciation of facts and
circumstances and evidence adduced, found the accused guilty and that has
caused miscarriage of justice and hence it is liable to be interfered with.
1