Originally posted by: mahatma123
no it didnt take that into account actually so tht is very relevant since patil said a 10 minute journey took 30 minutes when they were driving at speed of 90-100 km/hr 😊
they did
yre didn't burst; accident was caused by rash and negligent driving The defence put forth by the accused about bursting of the tyre is also ruled out. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving while turning
the vehicle without taking proper care and attention, having knowledge that the people were sleeping in front of the laundry. Defence argued that for a distance of 7- 8 km, at a speed of 90- 100 km/ h, very little time would be required ( to reach the spot from J W Marriott), but according to the defence, 30 minutes' time was required to reach the spot of
the incident. So, according to defence, the vehicle was not speeding. If really the vehicle was not in speed, bursting of the tyre would not arise, and vehicle could have been stopped on the spot by applying the brakes as the car was having ABS ( anti- lock braking system). It means that the vehicle was in speed and while taking right turn on Hill Road from St Andrews Road, the accused lost control and went straight over the people sleeping in front of the laundry;
4