Skip to main content

Driving In High Speed On A Very Busy Road Can Be Said To Be Rash & Negligent

In CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2007, Popat Bhaginath Kasar vs State of Maharashtra, the appellant as the driver of a tempo ran over a young boy who died at the spot. The trial court convicted the driver under Section 304A & 279 of IPC as well as Section 184 and 183(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On appeal, the lower appellate court only convicted him under Section 304A of IPC and also reduced his sentence. Against this the driver appealing before the Bombay High Court and while admitting the accident, tried to establish that the speed was not very high rather the boy had coming running before the vehicle and driver inspite of best efforts by braking and trying to avoid failed to do so and ran over the boy.

The High Court observed that one of witness who was also the passenger had said that while the driver tried to avoid the boy, the vehicle was travelling fast. The court said that while there is no specific yardstick to measure what constitute rash driving, the records show that the vehicle skidded for 35 feet after braking which establishes very high speed.

The Court said that speed alone is not a criteria to reach to the conclusion about the rashness on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, at the same time, it will be one of the factor as an indicator to show that the driver was driving the vehicle in most rash and negligent manner if he is
unable to control the speed of the vehicle. Dismissing the revision, the court held that driving the vehicle in a high speed in the area which is thickly populated and having too much movements, is one of the shade by which it could be said that it is a rash and negligent driving.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more