Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
State vs . Harpreet Singh on 24 February, 2011 cites

State Of Punjab And Others vs Harpreet Singh Son Of Taranjit Singh ... on 20 July, 2010

In my considered opinion, speed in itself is a very subjective term and simply because the scooter was being driven at a high speed that in itself is not a conclusive proof of indictable rashness or negligence. The time of the accident was reportedly FIR No.457/02 5 State vs. Harpreet Singh 10:00 p.m in the night. The prosecution has failed to throw any light regarding conditions at the spot of the accident at the pertinent point of time. Even the Site plan remains unproved. The complainant/ injured Vijay Singh could not be examined on behalf of the prosecution as he was reportedly untraceable. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would not be safe to convict the accused upon the sole allegation of driving the scooter at a fast speed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - M S Sullar - Full Document

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

16. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul Subhan v. State ­ 2007 Cri. L. J. 1089 that "12. The present case is on a similar footing. Apart from the allegation of having driven the truck at a high­speed, which itself is an unclear expression, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner drove the vehicle rashly and/or negligently or did any act which would amount to a rash and/or negligent act. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be convicted under the provisions of Section 279 and 304A, IPC. The Courts below have committed a grave error in convicting the petitioner and this error needs to be corrected in revision. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal."
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1083 - B D Ahmed - Full Document
1