J. C. DOSHI
Tejrav Uttamrav Ranit – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Present revision application u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner – accused being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2007 by the Ld. 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat dated 22.11.2012 confirming the judgment and order of conviction & order of sentence passed by Ld. JMFC, Mandvi dated 21.7.2007 passed in Criminal Case No. 162/2005, whereby the petitioner - org. Accused was convicted for offences punishable u/s. 279, 337 & 304-A r/w 338 of the IPC and respectively sentence for (i) simple 'imprisonment of 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of in default of payment of fine, (ii) simple imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of default of payment of fine and (iii) simple imprisonment of one and half years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with further S.I. of 06 months in case of default of payment of amount of fine, under the said offences. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence puinishable u/s 184 of the MV Act and sentenced for simple imprisonment of 2 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. o
Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka
Syad Akbar v State of Karnataka
Sushil Ansal v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation
The judgment established the need to prove criminal rashness and negligence, emphasizing the distinction between negligence and rashness, and the requirement to link the accused's alleged drunken sta....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the degree of negligence and rashness to establish offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing t....
: Answers given by accused when incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence are put to him and his statement under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C. is recorded, are required to be conside....
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
The court reaffirmed that driving under the influence leading to accident constitutes negligence, with the burden on the accused to explain circumstances of the incident.
Driving recklessly and losing control of a vehicle causing injury or death constitutes negligence, warranting conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.