The judgment establishes the distinction between rashness and negligence in the context of driving offenses, emphasizing the need for more than mere carelessness to establish culpability.

ORDER

A. Pasayat, J. - On the accusation of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of a school going minor girl Bhanumati Pande (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'), Prafulla Kumar Rout (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced.

2. Accusations, in short, are as follows :

On 7-l-1986 at about 4 p.m. while students of Khantapade Girls' High School were returning home after closer of school, a bus named "Madhabika" bearing registration No. SRS 3821 which was being driven by the accused came at a high speed, and dashed against the deceased, ran over her and caused her instantaneous death at the spot of accident. Accused who was driving the vehicle left the bus at the spot and fled away, Revenue Supervisor of Sore Tahesil (P.W. 13) who was returning from Khantapade R.I.'s Office lodged F.I.R. at Khantapade Police Station, investigation was undertaken and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted.

3. Seventeen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case. Out of them P. Ws. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 claimed to be the eyewitnesses, P.Ws, 5, 6 and 7, school mates of the deceased, were returning with her. P.Ws. 4 and 9 were post occurrence witnesses. P. W. 16 was the M.V.I. who went to the spot and examined the offending vehicle. Accused admitted the accident, but attributed negligence to the deceased. On evaluation of evidence, and placing reliance on the version of eye-witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bolasore found the accused guilty for an offence punishable u/s 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable u/s 279, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable u/s 304A, IPC, in default to ndergo simple imprisonment for two months. He concluded that the accused was driving the vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that high speed is a relative term. In the absence of any definite material regarding the speed at which vehicle was being driven, no rashness or negligence can be attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that when a victim runs towards a vehicle unexpectedly, and is injured by impact, it cannot be construed to be a rash or negligent act of the driver. According to him, the deceased ran towards the vehicle suddenly and dashed against it whereby the accident was caused. Great emphasis is laid on the evidence of some of the eyewitnesses who have stated that the driver was blowing horn. Alternatively, it is submitted that sentence as awarded is harsh and reduction is warranted. Learned counsel for State on the other hand, submitted that it is common knowledge that motor vehicles are being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and large number of fatalities on account of such accident cannot be lost sight of. It is stressed that unshaken evidence of the eye-witnesses clearly establish guilt of the accused.

5. Section 279, IPC deals with rashness and negligent driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to constitute an offence punishable u/s 279, IPC, it must be established that (a) the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way, (b) such driving was done in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. For the purpose of Section 279, rash and negligence must be described as criminal rashness or criminal negligence. It must be more than mere carelessness or . error of judgment.

6. For an offence punishable u/s 304A, IPC point to be established is that the act of accused was responsible for resulting in the deat