Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Abdul Subhan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 September, 2006
In the case of Abdul Subhan's case (Supra) Hon'ble Judge observed that
6
apart from the allegations of having driven the truck at a highspeed, which itself
was an unclear expression, there was 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.
Ishwar Singh Bagga & Ors. Etc vs State Of Rajasthan Etc on 19 November, 1986
Similarly in the case of Ishwar Singh's case (Supra), Hon'ble Judge
observed that there was nothing to suggest that accident had taken place due to
his negligence or rash driving.
Sanjay @ Kaka Shri Nawabuddin @ Nawab ... vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 7 February, 2001
In support of these submissions, learned counsel has referred to decisions in
Tukaram Sitaram v. State AIR 1971 BOMBAY 164; Abdul Subhan vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) 2007[4] JCC 3148; Ishwar Singh vs. State 2012 [3] JCC 1686;
Vinod Kumar vs. State 2011 [4] JCC 2786 and State of Haryana vs. Sher
Singh AIR 2009 SC 823.
State Of Haryana vs Sher Singh & Ors on 24 February, 1981
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Sher Singh's case (Supra), Hon'ble
Apex Court found substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for
appellant that there was no mention about rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle; Hon'ble Court observed that although the victim stated in his dying
declaration that he could identify the driver, but he did not refer to the accused.
Therefore, Hon'ble Court did not consider it to be a fit case for interference and
as such the appeal filed the State against acquittal of the accused was dismissed.
Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 November, 1971
In the case of Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR
1972 SC 211, Hon'ble Apex Court held the bus driver to be not negligent while
observing that if a person suddenly crosses the road the Bus Driver, however,
slowly he may be driving may not be in a position to save the accident.
Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the Bus Driver was negligent.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Tukaram Sitaram Gore vs State on 27 February, 1970
In Tukaram Sitaram's case (Supra), it was observed as under:
"In order to hold accused liable under Section 304A there
must be evidence not only of rashness or negligence acceptable to
Court but also that the rash or negligent act of accused was the
proximate cause of death and that there must be a direct nexus
between the death of a person and rash or negligent act of
accused."