Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Mohan Karthik - Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Chennai - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 524 of 2018 & Crl. M.P. No. 8551 of 2020
Decided On : 08-08-2022
Rash and Negligent Driving - Criminal Law - Sections 279 IPC, 304-A IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 279 IPC, which deals with rash driving endangering human life, and Section 304-A IPC, which deals with causing death by negligence. The court highlighted the requirement to prove rash or negligent driving endangering human life and the causation of death in order to establish the offences under these sections. The court also emphasized the importance of witness testimony and the need for proper evidence to establish the accused's guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a car accident where the accused was charged with offences under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC for causing the death of a cyclist due to rash and negligent driving. The prosecution relied on witness testimony and evidence from the accident scene to establish the accused's guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses' testimony did not conclusively prove that the accident was caused by the accused's rash or negligent driving. The court noted inconsistencies and improbabilities in the witness statements and highlighted the failure to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimony, the presence of the accused at the accident scene, and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the rash and negligent driving that led to the victim's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that to convict the accused for the offences under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC, the prosecution needed to establish the elements of rash or negligent driving endangering human life and the causation of death. The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence and the need to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court was set aside. The petitioner/accused was set at liberty, and any fine amount paid was to be refunded. The bail bond, if executed, was to be cancelled.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai and set aside the judgment passed by her in C.C.No.66 of 2009, dated 07.04.2017 as confirmed by the Appellate Court made in C.A.No.57 of 2017 by judgment dated 21.03.2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District in dismissing the appeal filed by him and confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.)
1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the concurrent finding of the lower Appellate Court confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in the case where the petitioner tried for the offences under Sections 279 IPC and 304-A IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as spoken by its witnesses and held to be proved, is that on 08/06/2008 at about 15.30 hrs, while 58 years old Pratap Singh was riding his bi-cycle along the Vairakulam Street Junction on K.K.Road, Thangal Erikkarai at Ambattur, the Maruti Zen Estilo car bearing registration No: TN 20 AK 6550 driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver Mohan Karthick, (Accused) hit the bi-cycle at its back and knocked down the cyclist and caused injuries on his head, chest and mouth. The accident was witnessed by PW-7 and he has identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. The son of the accident victim Prakash Singh (PW-1) come in the motorcycle along with his friend Subbu Kutti (PW-2), saw Pratap Singh with injury on his head lying on the road. The injured was first taken to a Private Hospital by name ESS VEE Hospital. On their advice, the injured was taken to Kilpauk Government Hospital, but on the way Pratap Singh died and the doctor (PW-4), who tested him declared brought dead. The accident report is Ex.P-3. About the accident, PW-1 gave a complaint to the Ambattur Police and on receipt of the complaint Ex.P-1, the Inspector of Police Mr.Periyadurai (PW-9) at Ambattur Police Station/respondent police registered FIR (Ex.P-7) in Crime No:480/2008 for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the driver of the Maruthi Zen Estilo car bearing Reg.No.TN 20 AK 6550.
3. PW-10, took up the investigation. He visited the accident spot and prepared the observation Mahazar (Ex.P-2) and rough sketch (Ex.P-8). Conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-9). The post mortem of the accident victim was conducted by PW-6 and the post- mortem report is Ex.P-5. As per the opinion of the Post Mortem Doctor, the death of Pratap Singh was due to multiple injuries all over the body and due to shock and haemorrhage. The offending vehicle Maruthi Zen was sent for Motor Vehicle Inspector's examination. The Motor Vehicle Inspector [PW-5] on examining the vehicle, gave a report which is marked as Ex.P-4 wherein it is stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical fault.
4. Considering the evidence, the trial Court in C.C.No.66 of 2009 vide judgment dated 07/04/2017 convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo 3 months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo 6 months SI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. The appeal against this judgment made in C.A.No.57/2017 was dismissed on 21/03/2018.
Revision Petitioner contention:
5. The accused, in this revision petition contends that, the evidence of PW-1 ought to have been disbelieved by the Courts below, since he has not even stated from which direction the victim was proceedings and he has not stated that PW2 was travelling with him in the motorcycle, while his father was proceeding ahead in the bi-cycle. The testimony of PW-1 is unbelievable and his presence at the place of occurrence is not probable. Particularly, when the Doctor at Kilpauk Government Hospital in the Accident Register [Ex.P-2] has mentioned only the name of one Chandran and not PW-1, as person wh
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The conviction for driving in a rash and negligent manner was upheld, observing that the prosecution sufficiently established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimony.
Accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused driver of the offending vehicle, in which, the deceased died on the spot and PW.1 sustained injuries and that the Prosecutio....
The court upheld the conviction for causing death and injuries due to negligent driving, affirming the lower courts' findings while reducing the sentence from six to three months based on mitigating ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to prove culpability in criminal cases, particularly in cases involving fatal accidents.
Conflicting witness testimonies and lack of corroborating evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused, resulting in acquittal.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to secure a conviction for rash and negligent driving.
Conviction for causing death due to negligence was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and failure to properly admit key evidentiary documents.
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
