Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Abdul Subhan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 September, 2006
In this regard, it would be apposite to advert to the
ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi), 2006 Delhi HC, wherein, the following
was observed:-
Kishore Chand Joshi vs State on 12 November, 2018
Digitally
signed by
APOORVA
APOORVA RANA
State Vs. Vijay Siwach RANA Date: Page Nos.13 / 21
2023.01.07
15:54:24
+0530
It has also been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
case titled as Kishore Chand Joshi vs. State (2018 Delhi HC),
that:
Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 1988
2023.01.07
15:55:08
+0530
moving, or the place / the direction in which the victim fell down
after the collision. Further, the IO failed to join any other public
person as a witness in the present case. As per the version of
PW4, he was going with the deceased and three other friends on
bicycles when the incident occurred. However, none of the said
friends of the deceased/PW4 have been interrogated / examined
during the entire course of investigation, let alone, having been
made as witness in the case. No other public person has also been
examined by the IO. This Court is conscious of the legal position
that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole
ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held
in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696.
However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of
the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As
observed above, material discrepancies have surfaced in the
testimonies of prime eye witness in the case. In such a situation,
evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the
much needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling
case of the prosecution, as discussed above. The absence of
independent witness of the accident in question further raises
suspicion about the genuineness of the allegations and the actual
manner of occurrence of the accident due to the rash and
negligent act of the accused.
Section 281 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ambalal D. Bhatt vs The State Of Gujarat on 7 March, 1972
2023.01.07
15:53:34
+0530
driving of the accused. It must be causa causans - the immediate
cause, and not enough that it may be causa sine qua non -
proximate cause. (Ref. Suleman Rahiman Mulam v. State of
Maharasthra AIR 1968 SC 829; Ambalal D Bhatt v State of
Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 1150). In case of an act resulting in death,
the act should not amount to culpable homicide.