2007 Supreme(SC) 40

2007(1) Supreme 732
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Rathnashalvan—Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4075 of 2006)
Decided on 11-1-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Venkat Subramaniam and G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, Vikrant Yadav and Sashidhar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal neligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was imperative duty of accused to have adopted.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 279, 337 and 304A—Appellant drove a lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree which was by side of road wherein three persons died and two were seriously injured, all were occupants of lorry—Defence plea that vehicle capsized because of mechanical failure—Conviction by Courts below and sentence of six months imprisonment with fine—Appeal—Evidence of RTO showed that accident did not occur on account of mechanical defect—Evidence of eye witnesses showed that vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and road was quite wide and there was no traffic at the time of accident—Culpable negligence lies in failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and extent of reasonableness will depend upon circumstances of each case—Rashness means doing an act with consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with hope that it will not—Courts below rightly found appellant-accused guilty and sentence called for no interference.

       Held : Coming to the question whether there was any rash and negligence involved, evidence of the RTO (PW-10) is relevant. He has clearly stated that the accident did not occur on account of mechanical defects. The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 6 who were eye-witnesses shows that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed. Significantly some of the PWs. were travelling in a lorry. PW-6 had stated that the vehicle was coming at a very high speed and that the road was quite wide and there was no traffic at the time of accident. It is to be noticed that the evidence of the witnesses clearly shows that the vehicle dashed against a tree and the branches of the tree fell on it. From the evidence of PW-6 it appears that though it was rainy season but there was no rain at the relevant point of time.(Para 6)

       Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused’s conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.(Para 7)

       As noted above, “Rashness” consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.(Para 8)

       When the factual scenario is considered in the light of evidence of the eye witnesses the inevitable conclusion is that the courts below have rightly found the accused guilty. The sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and the fine imposed does not in any way appear to be irrational.(Para 10)