Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 279, 304A -- Rash and negligent driving - Accused while driving bus hit the scooterist as a result victim who was driving scooter died on spot - Wife and children of deceased were got admitted in hospital by accused himself - Delay of one day in lodging FIR - Wife of deceased not examined - I.O failed to mention the details of accident -..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- `Rash' and `negligent' - Difference between - Rashness means where the actor foresees possible consequences, but foolishly thinks they will not occur as a result of his act - Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- Negligence - Held, essence of negligence whether arising from an act of commission or omission lies in neglect of care towards a person to whom defendant or accused as the case may be owes a duty of care to prevent damage or injury to property or person of victim - Existence of a duty to care is thus the first and most fundamental..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- Criminal negligence - Nature of - Held, prosecution has to establish that negligence with which accused is charged is `gross' in nature - What is `gross' would depend upon fact situation in each case and cannot, therefore, be defined with certitude...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- Criminal negligence - Doctrine of causacausans - Held, for an offence u/s.304-A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was causacausans that resulted in death of victim - Causacausans means immediate cause; last link in..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- Criminal negligence - Uphar Cinema - Proof - Ansal brothers were in full control over affairs of company which owned cinema, as well as cinema itself, at all material times, including date of incident - Held, Ansal brothers were both occupiers of cinema complex as on date of incident in which capacity they owed a duty to care for..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- Criminal negligence - Award of damages against owner of cinema hall - Held, it cannot be made basis to hold occupier guilty of gross negligence u/s 304-A IPC...........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A, 79 -- Criminal negligence - Protection of S.79 - Held, not available to a person who has not acted with due care and caution - Essence of S.79 is a belief entertained in good faith about legitimacy of what is being done by person concerned - In present case, Ansal brothers/appellants acted in a rash and negligent manner in breach of..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A, 79 -- Criminal negligence - Protection of S.79 - Mistake of fact - Appellants-occupiers of cinema have not been in a position to identify the facts qua which they were under mistake - Nor is it clear as to how any such mistake of fact would have justified their act in law - Held, appellant-occupiers not entitled to benefit of S.79 of..........
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304A -- Gross negligence in grant of fire NOC - Officer concerned had to be satisfied as regards safety of premises - He cannot take shelter behind printed proforma for inspection - Concurrent finding of guilt recorded by Courts below - Held, no reason to interfere...........
