Search Results for "section 304-A"

174 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 174 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Acquits Accused in Rash Driving Case Under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC Due to Lack of Evidence and Procedural Lapses -- Conviction Overturned and Acquittal Restored

The appellant was convicted by the first appellate court under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for rash and negligen...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Bus Driver in Rash Driving Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Negligence. Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC set aside as sole eyewitness did not testify that the bus was driven rashly or negligently.

The applicant, Shivaji Damodar Karne, a bus driver employed with BEST, was convicted by the trial court (28th Esplanade Court, Mumbai) in CC No.40/P/9...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Rash Driving Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Identity and Negligence. Concurrent Conviction Under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Accused Was Driver of KSRTC Bus Involved in Fatal Accident.

The petitioner, Chand Basha, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C. No. 165 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 2...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Partly Allows Revision in Rash Driving Case, Maintains Conviction but Reduces Sentence for Aged Accused. Conviction under Section 304A IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving upheld, but sentence reduced to period already undergone due to age and health of accused.

The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Dakaram Bhojraj Khotele, a bus driver, against his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revision Against Conviction for Rash Driving Causing Death — Evidence of Eye-Witnesses and Spot Panchnama Sufficient to Prove Guilt Under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC.

The applicant, Harish Narayan Burkule, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctors in Medical Negligence Case — No Prima Facie Case Under Section 304A IPC. Allegations of Rash or Negligent Act Not Made Out as Treatment Was Given in Good Faith and No Gross Negligence Established.

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench heard two criminal applications filed by Dr. Pradeep Sadashiv Wankhede and Dr. Abhishek Vasantrao Sondawale, bot...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Discharge Petition in Medical Negligence Case Under Section 304A IPC — Lack of Material to Show Rash or Negligent Act. Court holds that death during anaesthesia without evidence of gross negligence does not constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The petitioner, Dr. Suvarna Arjun Jaybhaye, a medical practitioner with an MBBS degree and a diploma in Anaesthesia, was the accused in S.C.C. No. 965...