Back
V. SUJATHA
D. Chandra Sekher Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short Cr.P.C], seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1423 of 2018 dated 03.04.2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool District, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of I.P.C., 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short M.V. Act.], wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 07.10.2017 at 3.30 p.m. on NH-40 road (Nandyal to Kurnool lane) opposite to Sree Bugga Rameswara Swami Temple main gate, Kalva Bugga, Orvakal Mandal, the deceased one Boya Ramudu, aged about 75 years, who is father of the 3rd respondent i.e., L.W.1/defacto complainant was while crossing the road for beedies, one Car bearing registration No.AP 21 AU 3269 came in a rash and negligent manner from Nandyal side, without blowing horn, hit the deceased and proceeded without stopping there. On that the deceased has received bleeding injuries on his head, legs and hands, immediately the 3rd respondent shifted his father to Government General Hospital, Kurnool by TAT
A direct nexus between the accused's negligent act and the death must be established for liability under Section 304-A IPC.
A direct nexus between the accused's negligent act and the death is essential for liability under Section 304-A IPC.
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence of rash and negligent driving to sustain charges under IPC sections; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for accountability.
Criminal liability under IPC for negligence requires direct causation and gross negligence must be established; absence of presence at the incident absolves the petitioner of responsibility.
A driver cannot be held criminally liable for an accident caused by an unforeseen event without evidence of negligent or rash conduct. The absence of mens rea precludes criminal liability under IPC s....
Negligence in criminal law requires a culpable mental state; mere occurrence of an accident without proof of rashness does not constitute a criminal offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
