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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more