Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)State Of Rajasthan vs Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta on 1 December, 2011
20. In the case at hand, the star witness of the prosecution was PW-1 who has
deposed that one tempo was being driven in a rash and negligent driving and
had hit one person. He made call on 100 number and police had come to the
spot. This witness has not deposed anything about the speed of the tempo or
the manner in which the tempo was being driven. Merely making a bald
statement that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent
manner is not sufficient to prove the rashness / negligence on part of the
accused. Moreover there are no photographs of the spot on the judicial record.
The reason for non-filing of the photographs is known best to the IO who has
not been examined. The site plan is also merely a perfunctory one and nothing
material could be inferred from it. The mechanical inspection report is also of no
State v. Vishnu Dutt Joshi U/s 279/304A IPC 8/9
FIR No. 347/05 PS Paschim Vihar
use to the prosecution as no damage was found on the vehicle as no collision
with another object had taken place.
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2014
17. It was observed by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case titled as "Vinod
Kumar v. State" 2012(1) RCR (criminal) 567 as follows,
"No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the
prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving
the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the
Petitioner. No photographs of the spot or the bus have been taken.
PW10 the alleged eye witness to the incident has also not deposed
anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle
was being driven by the Petitioner, except making a bald statement
that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent
manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no
evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the
manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and
negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area
was a crowded one."
S.N. Hussain vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 January, 1972
16. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh",
AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
Section 207 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Abdul Subhan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 September, 2006
In case titled as "Abdul Subhan vs State, NCT of Delhi" 2007 Cr.L.J1089,
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that, "In a criminal trial, the burden of
proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an
accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of
innocence in favor 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 the present 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 loquitor."