Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.56 seconds)Section 281 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 July, 2000
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 279/337/338 IPC
State Vs Ravi @ Ravinder Page No. 10 of 15
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable
and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public
generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty
of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care
and precaution (Ref: Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P.
(2000) 7 SCC 72).
Kishore Chand Joshi vs State on 12 November, 2018
25) It has been argued that by the Ld APP for the State that since the
vehicle was being driven in high speed which the accused could not
control, the presence of rashness/negligence stands proved. There is
however, no merit in the argument as raised since it is noted that
while PW2 Shruti and PW-3 Geeta have testified on similar lines as
to the accused driving the Maruti Van in high speed and in rash and
negligent manner, the prosecution has not been able to prove on
record the exact speed at which the car was being driven. It is to be
borne in mind that while a witness may depose as to the manner of
driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven, the witness
cannot render an opinion on 'rash and negligent' since high speed in
itself may not be sufficient to hold that the driver of the vehicle was
rash or negligent. (Ref: Kishore Chand Joshi v State (2018) SCC
Online Del 12337).
State Of Karnataka vs Satish on 13 March, 1996
27) It cannot be lost sight of that in a criminal trial, the burden of
providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge
against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary
is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to
some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception
pleaded in this 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". (Ref State of Karnataka v
Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493).