RAVI KAPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

1.4. The other principle that is pressed in aid by the courts in such cases is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine serves two purposes - one that an accident may by its nature be more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the opposite party is responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence. Secondly, it is to avoid hardship in C cases where the claimant is able to prove the accident but cannot prove how the accident occurred. The courts have also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in ·cases where no direct evidence was brought on record. The Act itself contains a provision which concerns with D the consequences of driving dangerously alike the provision in the IPC that the vehicle is driven in a manner dangerous to public life. Where a person does such an . offence, he is punished as per the provisions of Section 184 of the Act. The courts have also taken the concept E of 'culpable rashness' and 'culpable negligence' into consideration in cases of road accidents. 'Culpable rashness' is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief F that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite consciousness (luxuria). 'Culpable negligence' is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which G show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. In such a case, the mere fact of accident is prima facie evidence of such H 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. A negligence. This maxim suggests circumstances of a given case the res speaks and is eloquent because the facts stand unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, shows that the act is B attributable to some person's negligent conduct. [Para that on 13] [249-G-H 250-A·E] 'An Exhaustive Commentary on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' by JusticeRajesh Tandon, First Edition, 2010 - referred to. c

1.5. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence. Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases provided the attendant 0 circumstances and basic facts are proved. Either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this principle can be applied. This doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage where it is not clear as to how and due to whose E negligence the accident occurred. The factum of accident having been established, the Court with the aid of proper evidence may take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The mere fact of occurrence of an accident does not necessarily imply that it must be owed to someone's F negligence. In cases where negligence is the primary cause, it may not always be that direct evidence to prove it exists. In such cases, the circumstantial evidence may be adduced to prove negligence. Circumstantial evidence consists of facts that necessarily point to negligence as G a logical conclusion rather than providing an outright demonstration thereof. Elements of this doctrine may be stated as : (1) The event would not have occurred but for someone's negligence. (2) The evidence on record rules out the possibility that actions of the victim or some third H party could be the reason behind the event and (3) RAVI KAPUR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 235 Accused was negligent and owed a duty of care towards A the victim. [Para 18] [255-A-F]