Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 133 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Paras Nath vs State Of Delhi on 22 April, 2003
22. In the present case, the offending bus hit the scooter of the
victim from behind. The accused has not taken any defence that the
scooter suddenly stopped or the brakes of the offending bus failed. It is
reasonably expected from a heavy vehicle running behind a smaller vehicle
to ensure the safety of the vehicle running ahead of it. The findings given
by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Paras Nath Vs. State of
Delhi 2003 (III) JCC 1500, are apposite and are reproduced as under:
Delhi 2003 (III) JCC 1500
"I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant. Merely because the witnesses did not use the
words rashness or negligence in his testimony and instead used the words
highspeed, cannot be taken that the appellant was not driving the vehicle
in a rash or negligent manner, what is important is to find out if the driver of
the offending vehicle was driving in public place rashly and in negligent
manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause heart or death
to any other person. In the case in hand the appellant hit the scooterist
from behind. It is not the case of the appellant that the scooterist had
applied break all of a sudden and therefore the appellant was taken
unaware which led the appellant's truck hitting the scooter from behind.
Act of negligence can be clearly attributed to the petitioner in this case as
he is solely responsible for causing this accident without any fault of the
scooterist. Rashness or negligence can be determined from the manner in
which the accident had take place. Even the site plan prepared by the
investigator which was exhibited as PW5/C speaks about the negligence
attributed to the petitioner. The appellant also admitted in his statement
under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that accident had
taken place with his truck but denied that it was due to negligent and rash
driving on his part".
1