Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. P. Naik and B. K. Chaturvedi, JJ.
STATE GOVERNMENT - Appellant
Versus
BHAWANESH KUMAR - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 34 Of 1957
Decided On : 07/31/1957
CRIMINAL LAW - RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT - CAUSING DEATH - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 304-A AND 338 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN RASHNESS AND NEGLIGENCE - APPLICATION TO FACTS OF THE CASE - HELD, ACCUSED'S CONDUCT NOT RASH OR NEGLIGENT - ACQUITTAL UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Sub-Divisional Officer in charge of testing and maintaining vehicles, was driving a truck when he encountered a buffalo-cart in the middle of the road. He attempted to overtake the cart from the left, but the cart swerved towards him, causing him to go off the road and overturn the truck, resulting in the deaths of three persons and injuries to another. The accused was charged with causing death by rash and negligent act (Section 304-A IPC) and causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent act (Section 338 IPC).
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that his conduct was not rash or negligent. The court found that the accused did not possess a driving license, but that this alone did not establish rashness or negligence. The court also found that the speed of the truck was not excessive and that the accused had attempted to overtake the cart in a reasonable manner, given the circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused's conduct amounted to rashness or negligence within the meaning of Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. 2. Whether the absence of a driving license is sufficient to establish rashness or negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accused's conduct did not amount to rashness or negligence. The court distinguished between civil and criminal liability for negligence, noting that in criminal cases, a higher degree of negligence is required to establish guilt. The court also distinguished between rashness and negligence, holding that rashness involves a conscious disregard for the consequences of one's actions, while negligence involves a failure to exercise reasonable care. 2. The court held that the absence of a driving license alone is not sufficient to establish rashness or negligence. The court noted that the accused was in charge of testing and maintaining vehicles and had been driving for over a year, indicating that he had the necessary experience and skill to operate a truck.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
( 2 ) THE accused-respondent Bhawanesh Kumar is the Sub-Divisional. Officer (Electrical and Mechanical) at the Sarodha Head Works. As part of his official duty he has to attend to and test all the vehicles both heavy and light and to maintain them in proper running conditions. D. W. 1 Jabbar tells us that the accused was in charge of the workshop and that no driver was appointed without a test held 'by him. He further says that the accused had been testing and driving the motor vehicles for the last 1 and l 1/2 years past and that he was an experienced motor driver. It is also a fact that he had no driving licence.
( 3 ) THE facts of the case which are not in dispute may shortly be stated as follows : on 13-1-1956 the accused was driving a motor truck no. M. P. B. 433 of the sarodha Head Works on the Bemotara-Durg road. Near the village Singhori, which is at a distance of one mile from Bemotara, the road takes a turn towards the right. There is a culvert bridge at this turning. After the truck had negotiated the aforesaid bend the driver of the truck saw a buffalo-cart in the middle of the road in front of him. The cartman (P. W. 12) admits that he was driving in the middle of the road. He also admits that the baffaloes had no nose-strings and that children were travelling in the cart.
( 4 ) IT may also be noted that there is overwhelming evidence that the road on the left had a slope and there were a few small and big ditches on that side. (See the evidence of Shivprasad (P. W. 1), Lallaram (P. W. 2), Mohammad Hanif (p. W. 4)and Shri M. B. Khan (P. W. 5 ).
( 5 ) THE evidence also shows that the speed of the truck after it had negotiated the bend at the culvert was not excessive. (See the evidence of Marotirao (P. W. 3), mohammad Hanif (P. W. 4), Ramjhan Khan (P. W. 6) and Samelal (P. W. 8) ). According to the evidence of Marotirao (P. W. 3) who was a passenger in the fatal truck and Was a driver himself, the speed of the truck was about 15 to 20 miles per hour. This also appears reasonably probable because one naturally slows down when passing a bridge and a culvert especially when there is a somewhat sharp bend there which in the instant case was, according to the map Exh. P. 13, about 120.
( 6 ) MOHAMMAD Hanif (P. W. 4) was the conductor travelling in the truck and ramjhan Khan (P. W. 6) was a passenger in it. They state that on sighting a buffalo-cart in front, the accused blew the electric horn. Mohammad Hanif is not very clear how and why the truck overturned but he states,
"turning back we looked why the horn was sounded, thereon we saw a buffalo-cart in front of the truck. AS THE vehicle went ahead the buffalo-cart came towards us. Whereupon the truck turned towards left and all of sudden overturned. "
His evidence shows that probably the driver wanted to overtake the cart from the right when the buffaloes also swerved to the right whereupon in order to avoid a collision with it, the driver had to pass it from the left. (His Lordship further reviewed the evidence and continued ).
( 7 ) THE evidence thus clearly indicate
AI
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
