IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sudhir Kumar Jain, J.
Rohtas – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Cr.REV.P. 348 of 2009
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Rash and Negligent Driving - Indian Penal Code - 279, 304A - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for driving a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, causing the death of a pedestrian. The court relied on the testimony of the eyewitness and the post mortem report to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under section 279/304A IPC based on the testimony of the eyewitness and the post mortem report.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the negligence of the accused while driving, and the plea for modification of the sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the eyewitness, which was found to be credible and trustworthy, and emphasized the importance of witnesses in the judicial system. The court also considered the gravity of the offence and the consequences of the negligent act in determining the sentence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the petitioner and modified the sentence to the period already undergone, along with a fine and cost to be deposited in the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.
The legal judgment primarily emphasizes the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the gravity of the offence in determining the appropriate sentence. The court relied heavily on the testimony of the eyewitness, Girish Kumar, who was an interested witness being the son of the deceased, but whose testimony was found to be credible, consistent, and trustworthy (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The forensic evidence, including the post mortem report, corroborated the eyewitness account by establishing that the injuries were consistent with a road traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving (!) (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the absence of independent witnesses does not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case if the eyewitness testimony is cogent and credible (!) (!) . It also noted that a close relative's testimony, when credible, can be relied upon, provided it inspires confidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In terms of legal principles, the judgment underscores that rash driving under section 279 IPC involves operating a vehicle in a manner so reckless as to endanger human life, while causing death by negligence under section 304A IPC involves a failure to exercise due care, resulting in death without the act amounting to culpable homicide (!) (!) (!) . The court emphasized that negligence and rashness are primarily issues of the absence of due care and caution, and that the driver’s duty is to adopt reasonable precautions to prevent harm (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the judgment discusses the importance of deterrence in sentencing, especially given the high incidence of road accidents and the dangerous nature of rash driving. The courts are urged to impose proportionate sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence, with a view to deterring future offences and promoting road safety (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court also considered mitigating factors such as the first-time offender status, age, and the period already undergone in custody. The sentence was accordingly modified to reflect the period of imprisonment already served, along with a fine and a contribution to a welfare fund (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the judgment affirms that the combination of credible eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and consideration of the circumstances of the offence are crucial in establishing guilt and determining appropriate punishment in cases of road traffic fatalities caused by rash and negligent driving.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was put to trial arising out of FIR bearing no 33/03 registered at police station Krishna Nagar under sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") on allegations that the petitioner on 03.02.2003 at 6.10 pm at road no 57 opposite Swaran Cinema, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Krishna Nagar was found driving the vehicle bearing registration no.DL-1PB-0717 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and while doing so hit against Mukut Lal when he was crossing road and caused his death not amounting to culpable homicide. The petitioner was given notice under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the code") to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined seven witness including eye witness Girish Kumar as PW1. The Statement of accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code wherein the appellant pleaded innocence and false implication but did not lead defence evidence. The Court of Sh. Raj Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") vide judgment dated 22.11.2007 convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under section 279/304A IPC primarily relying on testimony of eye witness Girish Kumar. The relevant part of the impugned judgment is reproduced verbatim as under:
8. In order to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle on the date, time and place, the most prominent, star witness and the eye witness of the incident is PW1 Girish Kumar who has categorically submitted that on 3.2.2003 he alongwith his father were coming from Tis Hazari courts in the bus in question and accused present in the court on that day was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. PW1 has categorically further submitted that at about 6.10 p.m. When the bus reached opposite Swaran Cinema bus stop, he alongwith his father were in the process of getting down from the bus, the accused shouted "Jaldi Utro Jaldi Utro". His father boarded down from the bus and when he was crossing the road in front of the bus, the accused started the bus in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accused hit his father and his father fell down from the bus, the blood started oozing out from the body of the victim and he was taken to Sri Ram Hospital where the doctor declared the victim as brought dead. PW1 has proved in his statement on record as PW1/A, the seizure memo of the bus as Ex.PWI/B, the seizure memo of the driving licence as Ex.PWI/C, personal search memo of the accused as Ex.PWI/D, the arrest memo as Ex.PWI/E, identification of the dead body as Ex.PWI/F. PW1 in the cross-examination has categorically denied that his father was unhealthy and fell down in front of the bus due to vertigo. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused has been unable to bring on record any evidence to show that the victim was suffering from vertigo and to prove his above said contention. Rather, in the cross-examination PW1 has again strengthened the prosecution story that his father was 70 years old and was hale and hearty.
10. Further, for establishing the factum of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver/accused while driving the impugned vehicle, the alleged eye witness testified that he alongwith his father were returning to their house from Tis Hazari Courts and when the blue line bus bearing no.DL-1PB-0717 reached opposite Swaran Cinema bus stop, he alongwith his father were in the process of getting down the bus when the accused shouted "Jaldi Utro Jaldi Utro". PW1 as well as the victim boarded down from the bus and when the victim was crossing the road rent of the bus the accused present in the court started the bus in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the accused hit the victim, the victim fell down from the bus, the blood started oozing out from his body and he was
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony and the consideration of the gravity of the offence in determining the sentence.
The testimony of an interested witness can be relied upon if found trustworthy and reliable, and the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity.
Conviction for negligent driving requires substantial evidence beyond mere speed; a driver cannot be held liable under IPC without evidence proving rashness and negligence distinctly.
: Answers given by accused when incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence are put to him and his statement under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C. is recorded, are required to be conside....
Revisional jurisdiction under CrPC Section 397 is limited to patent errors or perversity; cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings on rash negligent driving proved by reliable eye....
A revision petition does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless there is clear illegality or perversity in the findings, and habitual offenders in fatal road accidents are denied the benefit o....
The court affirmed the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, establishing that the accused's recklessness was the primary cause of the victim's fatal injuries.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were the direct cause of the accident, considering contributory negligence in criminal cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.