Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs Satish on 13 March, 1996
7. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India reported in 1998 8 SCC 493 in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Satish, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the
merely because the truck was being driven at a “high speed” does not be
speak of either “negligence” or “rashness” by itself. None of the
witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even
approximately, as to what they meant by “high speed”. “High speed” is a
relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to
establish as to what it meant by “high speed” in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the absence of any material on the record,
no presumption of “rashness” or “negligence” could be drawn by
invoking the maxim “res ipsa loquitur”.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1