Back
1984 Supreme(MP) 513
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P. C. Pathak, J
Chintaram
v.
State of M. P.
Cr. Rev. No. 686 of 1982 against the order passed by Shri R. D. Shukla, Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur;
Decided on 24-8-1984
Y. K. Munshi for applicant; D. D. Bhargava for State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860-S. 304-A-rash or negligent driving-gravamen is mens rea-is essential.
Under section 304-A of the Penal Code gravamen of the offence consists in the conduct of the accused being either 'rash or negligent'. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are the determining factors. In order to establish criminal liability, the facts must be such that the negligence of the accused went beyond a more matter of compensation and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount a crime. Section 304-A, like all other sections of the Penal Code, requires a mens rea or guilty mind. The rashness or negligence must be such as fairly to be described as criminal. Mere carelessness is not sufficient. 1957 JLJ 308 & 1958 JLJ 331, relied on. [Para 10
(2) Penal Code, 1860-S. 304-A-breach of Driving Regulations-when an offence.
Mere breach of Driving Regulations does not necessarily give rise to an inference of a criminal negligence, Similarly, mere fact that a pedestrian is knocked down and has died, the driver of the erring vehicle cannot be presumed to be guilty of rashness or negligence. The prosecution has to prove that rash and negligence act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death. The question whether the accused’s conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection, which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient upon circumstances of the case. The mere fact that the accident would have been still more cautious would not be enough to make him liable under section 304-A of the Penal Code. [Para 14
(3) Criminal PC, 1973-S. 363 (1)-copy of the judgment of conviction-should be supplied immediately to accused free of cost-this provision applies to appeals also.
Section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Subsection (1) thereof provides that when the accused is sentenced to imprisonment, a copy of the Judgment shall immediately after pronouncement of the Judgment, be given to him free of cost. This provision is also applicable when judgments are delivered in appeals. AIR 1954 Calcutta 29 & ILR 1958 Cuttack 580 relied on. [Para 18
P. C. Pathak, J.
1. The applicant-accused has filed the revision challenging his conviction under section 304-A of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for eight months, passed on him in Cri. Appeals No. 32 of 1982, and 34 of 1982, by the Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, arising out of Judgment dated 15-5-1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narayanpur, in Criminal Case No. 127 of 1981.
2. The prosecution case is that on 15-3-1981, at about 4.30 p.m., deceased Rukmibai, along with Mst. Rondibai and Mst. Bhukibai (P. W. 4), was returning from Narayanpur market by metal road leading to Kondagaon, when the accused on motor-cycle CPR 4335 came from behind and dashed Rukmibai, who received serious injuries and fell unconscious. She succumbed to her injuries at 5.45 p. m. the same day at Primary Health Centre Narayanpur as per intimation, Ex. P-3. Sirnath (P W. 1) made a report (Ex. P-1) at Police-station Narayanpur. The accused and pillion rider Mukaru also received injuries.
3. M. P. Shrivastava (P. W. 4), S. I. Narayanpur, held inquest on the dead body on 15-3- 1981 vide Ex. P. 7. Dr. Vijay Kumar Sanjay (P. W. 7) did the post-mortem vide Ex P-8A. The cause of death was head injuries resulting in intra-cranial haemorrhage. Patwari Laxman (P. W. 6) prepared a map on 18-3-1981, Ex. P 15. The motor-cycle was seized vide seizure memo. Ex. P-9 and got inspected by a mechanic. The inspection report is not filed. After recording statements of witnesses, charge-sheet was filed.
4. The trial Court framed charge under section 304-A of the Penal Code against the accused. The accused abjured his guilt.
5. The prosecution examined three witnesses to prove the death of Rukmibai caused by rash and negligent act of the accused. Sirnath (P. W. 1) who made the first information report (Ex. P-l) and Phoolsingh (P. W. 2) were declared hostile. They were cross-examined by the learned Addl. Public prosecutor. Their statement do not throw light except that Phoolsingh (P. W 2) admitted in his cross-examination that after the accident, the deceased lay on the left side of metal road. Smt. Bhukibai (P. W .4) stated that she along with deceased was returning from Narayanpur market by her left. The accused came from behind on motor cycle from Narayanpur. Even though the deceased went out of the metal road to walk on unmetal part of the road, the motor cycle of the accused hit her from behind and caused the accident. The deceased was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. In cross-examination, she admitted that she and the deceased both were in the middle of the road. From the middle of the road, the deceased ran towards her left. While she was going to her left, the accused hit her with his motor cycle. She also stated that the accused was driving his motor cycle on the left side of the road.
6. In his examination the accused stated that he was driving his motorcycle with a speed of 20 kms. per hour. On the pillion Mukaru was sitting. When he saw the deceased and Mst. Bhukibai (P. W. 4.), he blew the horn. Hearing that, the deceased all of a sudden ran to her left be tried to swerve the motor cycle to avert the accident, but the deceased dashed against the motor-cycle. He denied that he caused her death by his rash and negligent act of driving the motor-cycle.
7. The learned trial Court held that the deceased and her companion Smt. Bhukibai (P. W. 4) both were going by their left on the road. The motor-cycle dashed against the deceased from behind so as to attract S. 304-A of the Penal Code. As regards Smt. Bhukibai (P. W. 4), admission in cross-examination that both were in the middle of the road and on hearing the sound of the motorcycle, the deceased ran towards the left of the road, the learned trial Court observed that this might have been due to her old age, illiteracy and lapse of time. The, part of her statement was, therefore, ignored. In view of the finding that the deceased was going by her left and the
