nThe Rajasthan High Court acquitted the accused charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the ground that the witness had filed an FIR after two days of the incident. The Supreme Court held such acquittal to be improper as there was overwhelming evidence in the favour of prosecution and the delay had not worked against the accused. Moreover, the delay was partly due to the negligence of the police who should have obtained the information from by-standers if the victim was unfit to make a statement before them while in the hospital (State of Rajasthan vs Maharaj Singh & Ors).

The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal held that compensation is to be paid by the owner in case of death of passengers in a truck accident because a truck is a goods vehicle and the insurance policy does not cover passengers. The owner contended that the insurer is liable to pay as the statute lays down that the policy covers any liability in respect of death, injury to ?any person? including the owner of goods or his authorised representative. The Supreme Court held that the term ?any person? does not include passengers in goods vehicles. They were neither contemplated at the time of insurance nor does the premium cover passengers, especially gratuitious passengers (Pramod Kr Agarwal & Ors vs Mushtari Begum).

In a case involving murder, the accused preferred an appeal challenging the conviction inter alia on the ground that the statement of witnesses ? incidentally the sons of the deceased victim ? cannot be relied upon and that no independent witness was examined. The Supreme Court held that where the sons were the witnesses and consistently supported the prosecution case, their statements cannot be discarded on the ground of being related to the victim (Rajinder & Ors vs State of Haryana & Anr).

SOLON