Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 133 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Abdul Subhan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 September, 2006
37. It is pertinent to note that in accident cases, the path of the movement
of the vehicles involved in the accident is required to be established
during the course of investigation. (Ref: Abdul Subhan v State (NCT of
Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562). However, in the instant case, the site plan
Ex PW10/A does not reflect the direction in which either the
motorcycle of the deceased was travelling nor does it reflect the
direction in which the vehicle of the accused was travelling since the
site plan only reflects point A where the accident took place and point B
where the motorcycle bearing number DL-8SAD-4131 was found
under the truck.
State Of Karnataka vs Satish on 13 March, 1996
40. It is also pertinent to note that even if it is assumed that the vehicle of
the accused was being driven in 'high speed', that in itself does not lead
to the inference that there was presence of either any "negligence" or
"rashness" even more so when none of the witnesses examined by the
prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what
was meant by "high speed" as 'high speed' is a relative term and it was
for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it
meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. It
cannot be lost sight of that in a criminal trial, the burden of providing
everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an
accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of
innocence in favour 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 this 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
loquitur". (Ref State of Karnataka v Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493).