Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Mukesh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 May, 2022 cites

Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017

19. PW­1 is stated to be belonging to the nearby village as of the deceased, PW­2 is the real brother of the deceased, PW­3 is the cousin brother of the deceased and PW­4 is stated to be the friend of deceased and also a resident of the nearby village as of the deceased. Given the closeness of the deceased with the said eye­witnesses PW­1 to PW­4, it is not understandable if the said eye­witnesses were present at the spot of accident, Mukesh Vs. State CA No. 136/2020 Page 8 of 11 why none of them, being the real brother, cousin, friend of the deceased, accompanied with the deceased to the hospital when he was taken by the PCR from the spot of accident. It is also not understandable why none of these eye­witnesses did not met the IO at the spot or at the hospital on the day of incident. It is also interesting to note that PW­1 stated that he cannot identify the accused, during his testimony in the court. If he was present at the spot, there is no reason for him to not identify the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 282 - Cited by 419 - Full Document

Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 July, 2000

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined rashness/negligence as in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 AIR (SC) 2511. It has been held that:­ "a rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. 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".
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 638 - Full Document

Abdul Subhan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 September, 2006

17. In the present case, the prosecution had examined four eye­ witnesses PW­1 to PW­4 to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of present offence. PW­1 to PW­3 stated that the motorcycle was driven at very high speed, while PW­4 stated that motorcycle was driven at high speed and in zig­zag manner. PW­1 to PW­3 did not state about the driving in zig­zag manner. It is well settled and has been observed in plethora of judgments that driving a vehicle at high speed is not per­se rash & negligent. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2007 (4) JCC 3148 observed that :
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1083 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 November, 1971

22. If a person suddenly crosses the road, it may not be possible for a driver of vehicle to save the accident even though he may be driving properly or at slow speed. Just because the accident is caused, the driver cannot be held to be rash and negligent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahadev Hari Lokre Vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 221 has observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 99 - D G Palekar - Full Document
1