The duty of every road user to exercise due care and caution, and the need for a deterrent sentence in cases of criminal negligence or rashness in accidents.

ORDER : This is a revision petition filed on behalf of the State under Section 439 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prayer of the State is that the sentence of fine of Rs. 5/- imposed by the learned Magistrate, Mapuca, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code read with Ss. 89 and 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is inadequate and, therefore, it should be enhanced. A notice was issued to the accused to show cause why the sentence should not he enhanced. This notice was under Section 439(2) of the Code.

2. The charge against the accused was that on 2nd March 1966 at 5.30 p.m., while returning from Mapuca he drove taxi No. GDT-679 at a 'tremendous speed' and thereby dashed against a bullock belonging to the complainant. The charge also was that the accused did not inform the Police about this accident. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge.

3. Sri Salvador Souza, learned counsel for the accused, states that there was a compromise between the complainant and the accused and hence the learned Magistrate took a lenient view. This statement is not borne out by the record. We are here concerned with the charge of rash and negligent driving so as to endanger human life. What is rash and negligent driving would depend upon the facts of each case. The decision in other cases are illustrative. There is a duty on every user of the road to exercise due care and caution while walking or driving. It is not necessary for the purposes of Section 279 that the rash or negligent driving should result in an injury to life of any person or property. It is also not necessary for the prosecution to prove that, at the time of the accident there was any person on the road. What is necessary for the prosecution to establish under this section is that the vehicle or car was driven on a public road in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger

human life. The taxi of the accused dashed against the bullock and injured it. The accused was driving at a time when the pedestrian traffic was likely to be crowded. This section applies to the facts of the case.

4. Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under :

"When any person is injured as the result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall -

(a) take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, and, if necessary convey him to the nearest hospital; unless the injured person or his guardian in case is a minor, desires otherwise;

(b) give on demand by a police officer any information required by him, or, if no police officer is present, report the circumstances of the occurrence at the nearest police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-five hours of the occurrence."

In this case clause (a) clearly does not apply. Clause (b) may be independent of clause (a). It may not cover the case of an animal injured. There are no rules framed by the Government under this section. Section 113 is not applicable. This section covers cases of disobedience of orders, directions and refusal of information.

5. Section 279 clearly applies and considering the circumstances of the case I agree with the learned Government Pleader that the sentence imposed was grossly inadequate. The end of justice would be served by maintaining the conviction under Section 279 and enhancing the sentence to rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 250/- or in default one month's rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine of Rs. 250/- a sum of Rs. 100 should be paid to the complainant as compensation for the loss suffered by him. It is necessary that in accident cases where criminal negligence or rashness on the part of public vehicle drivers or others is proved, a sufficient deterrent sentence is awarded unless there are any extenuating circumstances. It need hardly be emphasised that accidents on account of rash and negligent driving on public roads are on the increase, and it is the duty of the magistracy to take

Click Here to Read the rest of this document