Naresh Gir/ v. State of M.P (2008) 1 SCC 791; Syed Akbar v. State

Judgment

10 S.C.R. 1063 S.K.S. Appeal allowed. A KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.1106 of 2008) JULY 16, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304A, 279, 337 and 338 - Truck carrying marriage party met with accident - A/legation that the driver was drunk1 and lost control and the truck rolled down in the fields - Gaus- ing death of four persons, simple injuries to 18 persons and grievous injuries to 8 persons - Trial Court acquitted the ac- cused-driver holding that there was no rash or negligent driv- ing as claimed by the prosecution - However, High Court con- victed the accused on basis of evidence of three eye witnesses after holding that rash and negligent driving was established, - On appeal, held: Evidence of the three witnesses clearly shows that more than 50 persons were there in the truck and the accused was driving the same at a very high speed - Con- viction justified. s. 304A - Applicability of - Discussed. Woros and Phrases- 'Negligence' and 'reckless' - Meaning ot According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day, Appellant was driving a truck carrying a marriage party of' around 50 persons. It is alleged that he was drunk and, lost control and as a result the truck went off the road and rolled down in the fields leading to death of four per-, sons, simple injuries to 18 persc;>ns and grievous injuries to 8 persons. PW-1-constable was an eye witness while ' PW-3 was an occupant of the truck and father of the bride- groom whose marriage party was travelling. The Trial' 1063 B c D E F G H ""' ;-- • ~ 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A Court held that there was no rash or negligent driving as claimed by the prosecution and acquitted the accused Appellant. On appeal, the High Court, relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 held that the rash and negli gent driving was established and convicted and sen- tenced the Appellant u/ss.279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. Hence the present appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. 5.304-A IPC applies to cases where there c is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. This provi sion is directed at offences outside the range of ss. 299 and 300 IPC. 5.304-A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under s.304-A. [Para 7] [1068-8,C] 0 ).._, '-'

1.2. 5.304-A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under s.299 or E murder under s.300. If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or F knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's ·death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, s.304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes pun ishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence, a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driv- G H f \ -· -f .... _,. KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 1065 ing at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in A terms of s.304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judg- ment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. S.304-A discloses that criminality may B be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such ' rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor. [Para 8] [1068-E,F,G,H 1069-A] c

1.3. In the present case, the evidence of PWs 1, 3 & 4 clearly show that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed. Evidence on record show that more than 50 persons were there in the truck and the appellant was driving the same at a very high speed. One of the wit- D nesses has stated that the truck was being driven as if it was an aeroplane. Therefore, the conviction as recorded cannot be faulted. [Para 17] [1073-E,F]