2023 Supreme(Raj) 1412
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Yogendra Singh Negi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2023
Mr.Rakesh Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Laxman Solanki, Advocate, Mr. S.K.Verma, Advocate and Mr.Rahul Rajpurohit, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Driving under the influence resulting in death can be classified as culpable homicide if the driver is aware of the risks involved.
Headnote:
Negligence - Culpable Homicide - IPC Sections 304, 304-A - The court discussed the implications of drunken driving under IPC, emphasizing the distinction between culpable homicide and negligent acts, influencing the decision to deny bail based on the severity of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a doctor, caused an accident while driving under the influence, resulting in one death and injuries to several others at a hospital.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient evidence indicating the appellant's awareness of the dangers of driving while intoxicated, leading to serious consequences.
Issues: Whether the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide or merely negligent driving under the influence of alcohol.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that driving under the influence, resulting in death and injury, can amount to culpable homicide if the driver is aware of the risks involved.
Result: The bail application was rejected.
ORDER
1. The case of the prosecution is that at about 10-11 a.m., on the morning of 05.01.2023, the appellant who is a doctor working in a Government hospital, in an inebriated state, while driving his car bearing No.RJ-07-CD-5020 caused an accident at the hospital, where he was working, wherein the car rammed into the general public/patients standing there resulting in on the spot death of one Bhanwar Lal and miscarriage of a pregnant woman namely Smt. Nazia Bano.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that alleged offence under Section 304 IPC is not made out against the appellant and at most, it is a case of Section 304-A IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged incident took place when the appellant was driving the offending car, who on entering the hospital suddenly lost control while the car was going through a speed breaker. It was submitted that due to rush and congestion near the hospital gate, unfortunately, the car had plowed into the persons standing there.
3. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant who is serving as a doctor in a Government hospital is now near the age of retirement. Learned counsel submitted that since investigation in the matter has already been completed, challan has already been filed and no recovery is due to be made from the appellant, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars. He thus implored the Court to accept the bail application and enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel invited attention of the court towards the report of Medical Jurist, Government Hospital, Nagaur pertaining to alcohol consumption by the appellant and submitted that in the aforesaid report, it had been clearly opined that the appellant had consumed alcohol/liquor. Learned counsel submitted that on the face of the report, the argument put forth that the appellant lost control over the car due to rush and congestion near the hospital gate deserves to be rejected.
5. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that in the incident which took place on 05.01.2023, not only one person lost his life and a lady suffered miscarriage but 4-5 other persons standing near the hospital gate were also injured. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel took the Court to the charge sheet submitted by the investigating agency on 04.03.2023. He thus implored the Court not to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.
7. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda reported in 2012 8 SCC 450 while dealing with the menace of drunken driving observed as under:
"86. Drunken driving has become a menace to our society. Every day drunken driving results in accidents and several human lives are lost, pedestrians in many of our cities are not safe. Late night parties among urban elite have now become a way of life followed by drunken driving. Alcohol consumption impairs consciousness and vision and it becomes impossible to judge accurately how far away the objects are . When depth perception deteriorates, eye muscles lose their precision causing inability to focus on the objects. Further, in more unfavourable conditions like fog, mist, rain etc., whether it is night or day, it can reduce the visibility of an object to the point of being below the limit of discernibility. In short, alcohol leads to loss of coordination, poor judgment, slowing down of reflexes and distortion of vision. (Emphasis supplied)
8. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648, held as under:
"41. Rash and negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dange