Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Minu Rout & Anr vs Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors on 2 September, 2013
In the instant case also, PW1 wife of
the deceased who has made a complaint to the jurisdictional
police; secondly, PW2 who has been examined claims that he is
the eye-witness to the accident; and thirdly, RW1-driver who is
examined on behalf of the owner also admits the accident.
These materials are sufficient for the purpose of proving the
accident. The accidental death was reported in daily newspaper.
To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel referred to
9
the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MINU
RAUT AND ANOTHER v. SATYA PRADYUMNA MOHAPATRA AND
OTHERS reported in 2013(7) SCJ 940 and refers to paragraphs
11 and 12 of the judgement in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has reversed the judgment of the High Court by referring to the
evidence of PW3 and 4 therein, who have deposed that they saw
the accident from a little distance from the market place where
about 10-20 persons were present.
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mutteppa Nagappa Karegar vs G.B. Attar And Ors. on 12 March, 2003
The learned counsel also
referred to the judgement of this Court in the case of MUTTEPPA
NAGAPPA KAREGAR v. G.B. ATTAR AND OTHERS reported in
2003(3) KAR.L.J. 387 (DB) in which it has been held that "but
the fact remains that the very respondent having admitted the
involvement of the vehicle in the accident, nothing more is
required to be proved about the accident."
Saroj & Ors vs Het Lal & Ors on 7 December, 2010
He also relied upon
the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SAROJ AND OTHERS v. HET LAL AND OTHERS reported in 2011
ACJ 552 and refers to paragraph 12 of the judgement.
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1