Back
Rajasthan High Court
L.S. Mehta, J.
State - Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No, 626 of 1966
Decided On : March 22, 1968
The mere fact that a fatal accident took place would not by itself be enough to make the accused liable under sec. 304-A I.P.C. To bring home an offence under this section, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the death of the victim was the direct result of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
In order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that the collision was entirely or at least mainly due to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused. It is not sufficient if it only * found that the accused was driving the vehicle at a fast speed.
It is plain from the prosecution evidence itself that the bus was being driven with a normal speed and towards the correct side of the road. It is also manifest from the prosecution evidence that Kumari Indu, who was coming on a bicycle from the northern side of the road, did not wait till the bus passed off and took a turn on her right side of the road. The fact that she was knocked down by the rear wheel of the bus and not by the front wheel or mudguard further indicates that the mishap was not the result of negligence or rashness on the part of the driver. It is further plain from the prosecution evidence itself that the driver stopped the bus, after tak-ing it towards the extreme left, at a distance of about 7 ft. from the actual place of the accident.
When there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the bus driver, for having killed the girl, so far as the use of the road and manner of driving the bus was concerned, the fact that the vehicle of the accused had free-play cannot be taken into consideration in convicting the accused under S. 304-A. I.P.C. though it can be made the subject of prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act, when it is clear that the defect in question was not in any way responsible for the accident.
When a person is run over by a bus and is crushed on the spot, the spectators are prejudiced against the driver of the vehicle and in such a case it becomes difficult for the court to ascertain the circumstances of the case It is possible that the present mishap took place because the girl abruptly paddled from the left side of the road towards its right, without knowing its consequences. The lorry stopped at a distance of about 7 ft. away from the place of the accident. In that circumstance, the accused cannot be held liable for the accident. (Paras 5 to 9 )
(1) Crush injury skull, bones fractured, flowing out, face compressed from before backward
(2) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" x bone deep about the left eyebrow.
(3) Clotted blood over lips in teeth left upper teeth fallen, maxilla left side fractured, so also mandible, nasal bone fractured.
(4) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on the dorsum of right middle finger.
(5) Irregular abrasion on the right side wall of abdomen.
(6) Lacerated wound 4-1/2" x 1-1/2" muscle deep on the left glutal region near midline, stood passed.
(7) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/2" on the dorsum of left foot terminal part.
In the opinion of the Medico-Jurist, cause of death was crush injury on the skull and brain of Kumari Indu. After the investigation was over, the Police put up a challan in the court of learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur City. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under sec. 304A I.P.C. In support of its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. In his examination under sec. 342, Cr.P.C. the accused admitted the unfortunate mishap, but stated that the accident did not take place because of his rashness or negligence. According to him it was Kumari Indu who collided against his bus. The accused further said that Indu came towards the wrong side of the road. He also stated that the bus was not being driven with excessive speed, which was hardly 5 to 7 miles an hour. The accused als0 pointed out that the brakes of the bus were in proper working order and there was no free-play therein. In the end, he said that he had made every endeavour to save Kumari Indus life by trying to take the bus towards the extreme foot-path of the road. In his defence, he examined 3 witnesses. The trial court disbelieved the prosecution evidence and reached the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that Hari Singh acted rashly or negligently. It, therefore, acquitted the accused of the offence under sec. 304-A. I.P.C. Aggrieved against the above judgment, the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the State Government.
2. Learned Assistant Government Advocate has argued that there is cogent and convincing evidence on the record to suggest that the accused acted rashly and negligently. He has further urged that there was free travel paddle play, in more than \" which was out of measurement, and that the hand-brake was also not in working order. That shows that Hari Singh was driving the vehicle with defective brake and, therefore, he was grossly negligent in plying the bus on the high-way. Learned counsel for the respondent supported th
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
