Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)State Of Tamil Nadu vs Rajendran on 22 September, 1999
In the case of STATE OF T.N. v. RAJENDRAN and in the case of DANIDAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA the Apex Court has emphasized the necessity of some explanation from the accused even in the case where entire case of the prosecution resolves around circumstantial evidence if the other circumstances are proved prima-facie by the prosecution. Going a step ahead, in my view in the cases of offences like one on hand especially offences of driving of a vehicle rashly and negligently the accused driver is required to explain as to how according to him the alleged accident took place. It is common knowledge that the true eyewitness account in the accident cases is very rare. The collision or killing of a person by the driving vehicle takes place in a flash of movement and it is only the victim and the driver of the vehicle who alone will be knowing what exactly happened. The so called eyewitness impressions given by the other people would be their immediate recollection as to what happened according to them when the impact took place. In this regard, if one looks into the provision of Section 106 of the evidence Act, person like driver of a offending vehicle has been called out for having special knowledge of the occurrence and in my view if he does not explain the same when he has been given a last opportunity while questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the prosecution has discharged its burden prima-facie the Courts are entitled to draw adverse inference against such accused.
Syad Akbar vs State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 1979
9. As noted earlier, in the present case, except few futile suggestions by P.W. 5 and other eyewitnesses, absolutely I find no ground or explanation posed on the side of the accused as to how exactly the incident took place. On the other hand, in the absence of such explanation and on the basis of the material produced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Courts below have rightly invoked the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor which is found applicable by the Apex Court as long back in the case of SYAD AKBAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA.
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs State Of Punjab [Alongwith Criminal ... on 10 April, 1957
12. It is no doubt true that the Court below has sentenced the appellant to maximum punishment. Taking into consideration the fact as observed by the Apex Court in the case of RATTAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB thats "More people die of road accidents than by most diseases, so much so the Indian highways are among the top killers of the country. Indian Transport is acquiring a menacing reputation which makes travel a tryst with death', I am of the view that such rash and negligent drivers require severe punishment especially when in the present case the petitioner is responsible for death of more than dozen people and grievous injuries to others. Here again, as I do not see any merit in the contention, the prayer of the petitioner to interfere with the punishment is also rejected.
Section 106 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rattan Singh vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 11 December, 1996
7. On perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution especially that of the complainant driver examined as P.W. 5 the facts as narrated in the complaint as even substantiated through the evidence of other injured passengers of the Bus. It is prima-facie apparent that while the complainant P.W. 5 was driving the Bus, the Tempo vehicle came from the opposite direction by overtaking another truck and dashed against the Bus resulting in death of 11 passengers and serious injuries to 17 others. The evidence of P.W. 5 has been amply corroborated by the passengers in the Bus who have sustained injuries and the investigating officer has further shown from his investigating report and deposition before the Court as to the accused petitioner being negligent and rashing driving. As against this prima-facie material, absolutely no explanation has been offered by the accused while he had the last opportunity of explaining when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. As held by the Apex Court in the case of RATTAN SINGH v. STATE OF H.P.
" Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., answers given by the accused to the questions put to him during such examination have a practical utility for the Criminal Courts. Apart from affording an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances, the answers would also help the Court in appreciating the entire evidence adduced in the Court."