Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 281 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011
22. Ld. Counsel for the accused had also argued that the accused was not
driving the offending vehicle and the injured was not hit by his scooter but by a car
of unknown person. The aforesaid defence of the accused seems to be an after
thought as no suggestion regarding the same was put to the complainant PW2
during his cross examination in the court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajjan
FIR no. 348/00 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Parvej Page no. 15 of 28
Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & others v. State of Haryana 2011 AIR (SC) 2552
have observed that the accused cannot raise an altogether new defence in the final
arguments without cross examining the witnesses on the relevant aspect and
without giving an opportunity to the witnesses to explain the same. The PW2
complainant Harish was cross examined at length but no suggestion regarding the
same was put to him. In view of the same I do not find any force in the aforesaid
arguments of the Ld. Defence Counsel .
Ku.Meghna Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2012
26. The same was again approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
Meghna Singh vs. State 2012 LE (DEL) 254 and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Prabhakaran v. State of Kerela AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2376
"....Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such
a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as
to the consequences.
Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 30 January, 1981
In the matter of Chaman Lal Vs State AIR 1954, ALL 186, it was
observed that Rashness and negligence are not the same things. Mere
negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness. There are degrees of negligence
and rashness and in order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence,
one must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking
hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to
be occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing of such an
act with recklessness and indifference to its consequences.
Sadhu Singh Roda S/O Buta Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1984
9. Here it would be appropriate to refer the case law reported as "Sadhu
Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 1997 (3) Crime 55 the Punjab & Haryana High
Court wherein it was observed as under:
" In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case
FIR no. 348/00 State v. Mohd. Iqbal Parvej Page no. 7 of 28
beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire
distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be
improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the
accused".