Supreme Court: Whether a person can be held liable in motor accident for contributory negligence or rash and negligent driving if he was attempting to overtake a vehicle?

 In the attending facts and circumstances, merely because a person was attempting to overtake a vehicle, cannot be said to be an act of rashness or negligence with nothing to the contrary suggested from the record. Further, it is the claimant-Appellant(s) who lost a member of their family. Not only was the claimant-Appellant, Prem Lal Anand doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road that is overtaking a vehicle, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. That apart, it has also been proved that the offending vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. These two factors taken together lead us to the conclusion that the finding of contributory negligence against the Appellant No. 1 was erroneous and unjustified. Consequently, compensation awarded on this count has to be revised. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 8503-8504 of 2024.

Decided On: 07.08.2024

Prem Lal Anand and Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0845/2024,2024 INSC 585.

Print Page

Whether conviction for rash driving and causing injury is maintainable where driver was facing real threat of imminent death?

 In the present case, the evidence shows that the Applicant did not drive the taxi at higher speed on his own volition. It was the case of the Applicant that he was forced to drive at a high speed by robbers at the point of razor. It is the case of the Applicant that he himself had suffered an injury on his neck caused by razor. The defence witness Dr. Loya has described the injury which was attributable to razor. The Applicant was referred to Dr. Loya by the police themselves. At the relevant time, Dr. Loya was attached to Nair Hospital. The Applicant has sufficiently proved his case on the touchstone of probability. The burden on the Applicant to prove his case was not as heavy as that on the prosecution. Therefore, in my considered view, the Applicant has proved that he was made to drive the taxi at the point of razor and he himself suffered injury on his neck. It is his case that he was under real and reasonable apprehension of suffering grievous injury or even of death at the hands of the culprits who had forcibly entered his taxi. Therefore, it cannot be said that he drove his taxi rashly and negligently on his own volition but he was forced to do so.

20. In the context of the circumstances of this case, Section 106 of the IPC is relevant, which reads thus:

“106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person.--If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.”

21. Therefore, though in the process four innocent pedestrians have suffered minor injuries, the Applicant cannot be held guilty of causing those injuries. The Applicant was deprived of his free will because of the real threat of imminent death at the hands of the person carrying razor. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Applicant cannot be said to have committed the offences for which he is convicted and sentenced.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Sarang V. Kotwal, J.)

Hamza Mohd. Ibrahim Ansari  v. State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Revision Application No. 257 of 2002

Decided on March 29, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 547

Print Page

When offence against child will not be triable before children's court?

.In the case in question, the petitioner is alleged to have

  committed the offences under Sections 279,337 and 338.

  Causing hurt or grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving is

  the ingredient of those offences.            In Cambridge Advanced

  Learner's Dictionary, Third Edition, the word 'rash' when used as



  adjective means careless or unwise, without thought for what

  might happen or result, meaning thereby that while doing

  something, the person did not think about the costs involved. In

  Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Third Edition, the

  word 'negligence' when used as adjective means not being

  careful or giving enough attention to people or things that are

  your responsibility. Therefore, when the allegation was to the

  effect that a person has acted in a rash and negligent manner, it

  cannot be said that he has acted intentionally. In view of the

  above, the petitioner in the case on hand cannot be said to have

  acted intentionally while causing injury to the victim. Or in

  other words, hurt or grievous hurt was caused to the child not by

  any intentional act of the petitioner. Without the juncture of the

  mental element like intention, infringement or violation of a right

  is not possible. Contextually, hurt or grievous hurt was caused

  to the child in the motor accident resulted from the rash and



  negligent driving by the petitioner. But the right of the child

  cannot be said to have been infringed or violated by the

  petitioner by his act. The incident in which the child has

  sustained injuries can only be said to be caused accidentally out

  of rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. In such

  circumstances,       the petitioner cannot be said to have

  intentionally caused hurt or grievous hurt to the child in the case

  on hand to put the same within the jurisdiction of the Sessions

  Court, Pathanamthitta.        Therefore, the     Sessions   Court,

  Pathanamthitta, which is designated as the children's court

  cannot be said to have any authority to try the case. The Judicial

  First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the

  committal court is the appropriate court to try the case.

  13. In Abdul Aziz's case (supra), a Single Bench of this Court

  had occasion to deal with a situation of similar nature and held as

  follows:-



              "..........Even if the victim in an accident case is
              aged below 18 years, such cases registered under
              Sections 279,337,338 or 304(A) of IPC, being cases
              arising out of an accident need not be tried by the
              Children's Court, constituted under Section 25 of
              the Central Act 4/2006. But, other cases involving
              violation of 'child rights', acts done with the
              intention to violate or infringe the 'child rights' if
              done with the knowledge that by his act the child
              right is likely to be violated then such offences are
              to be tried by the Children's Court. The learned
              Magistrates, before whom such charge sheets are
              filed, are to apply their minds and find whether
              offences complained of involve violation of the
              'child rights'. If so, such cases are to be committed
              to the Court of Sessions (The children's Court),
              following the procedure prescribed under Sections
              207 to 209 Cr.P.C. "


  14.In view of the discussion hereinabove made and in view of

  the aforesaid dictum, this Court is of the view that Annexure A1

  committal order will not sustain in the eye of law.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

             MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

         7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016
                        Crl.MC.No. 2910 of 2013
                  

            P.M.MATHEW,
        V 

            STATE OF KERALA,
           Citation:2016 CRLJ 4766

Print Page

Whether quashing of prosecution is permissible in case of death by rash driving due to compromise between parties?

These pronouncements of the Apex Court highlights the impact that an offence under S. 304A of the I.P.C. has on the society. The guidelines issued by a Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0781/2012 : (2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC) : (2012) 10 SCC 303) as followed in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0235/2014 : (2014 (2) KLT SN 45 (C. No. 61) SC : (2014) 6 SCC 466) cannot be applied in a case of instant nature as the crime committed by the accused is not one which can be categorised as private or personal. As held by the Apex Court in Guru Basavaraj (supra) the offence under S. 304A of the I.P.C. has the potentiality of making victims in many a layer and thus to create a concavity in the social fabric. It has its own impact on the society and the impact is felt more when accidents take place quite often because of rash driving by drunken, negligent or adventurous drivers who have no concern for others. The High Court in exercise of the powers under S. 482 of the Code cannot send a signal to the wrongdoer concerned that payment of money will be a substitute to the crime committed against the society. Taking a lenient view of an offence under S. 304A of the I.P.C. will leave a wrong impression about the criminal justice system and will encourage further criminal acts, which will endanger the peaceful coexistence and welfare of the society at large. Such offences cannot be treated as a private dispute between the parties, so as to persuade this Court to accept a compromise and to quash the proceedings. The inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Crl. M.C. No. 2880 of 2016

Decided On: 18.05.2016

Mohammed Ashraf Vs.  State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

Print Page

Whether a person can be absolved from liability for his rash and negligent driving on ground of his acquittal in criminal case?

From the perusal of the award, it could been seen that during cross examination, RW1, has fully admitted that disciplinary proceedings have been taken against him, for his act of negligence and that he was under suspension for three months. While adverting to the evidence adduced, on behalf of both parties, the claims tribunal has considered the judgment, made in Zoological Park Vs. S.Kalyana Raman and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 133 wherein, the Court has held that the finding of the criminal court, is not binding on the claims tribunal.  Mere acquittal in the criminal case does not amount to absolving a person of his rash and negligent driving.  It is well known that the test to prove the guilt of an offence in the court of criminal jurisdiction is proof beyond all reasonable doubt,  whereas, in claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is suffice that the claims tribunal adjudge, negligence on the principles of preponderance of probability. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED:  23.06.2014
CORAM:
THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
C.M.A.No.1781 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014

The Managing Director,
Vs.
Santhi
Citation;2016(2) ALLMR(JOURNAL)40

Print Page

Whether rash and negligent driving can be presumed on the basis of high speed of vehicle?

  In the present case, except the bare words of 2 
witnesses, who are interested witnesses, that the bus was in 

high speed, there is no evidence to show that the bus was 
driven rashly and negligently by the applicant.     The Courts 
below   ought   to   have   extended   benefit   of   doubt   to   the 
applicant.   Accordingly, the said benefit is extended in favour 
of   the   applicant   and   the   Judgment   and   the   Order   of 
conviction dated 03/04/1996 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., 
and the Order of conviction dated 01/02/2002 passed by the 
learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Nanded   in   Criminal 
Appeal 33/1996 are hereby quashed and set aside.                                                                            
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY   
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
      
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2002
Gundappa Madolappa Samangave

                  
V E R S U S

The State of Maharashtra
                          
         CORAM  : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
       DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12 th JANUARY, 2015 
     Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1060

Print Page

Whether court should order accused to do community service if he is convicted rash and negligent driving?

Community Service for Avoiding Jail Sentence

60. Convicts in various countries, now, voluntarily come forward to serve the community, especially in crimes relating to motor vehicles. Graver the crime greater the sentence. But, serving the society actually is not a punishment in the real sense where the convicts pay back to the community which he owes. Conduct of the convicts will not only be appreciated by the community, it will also give a lot of solace to him, especially in a case where because of one’s action and inaction, human lives have been lost.

61. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where six human lives were lost, we feel, to adopt this method would be good for the society rather than incarcerating the convict further in jail. Further sentence of fine also would compensate at least some of the victims of such road accidents who have died, especially in hit and run cases where the owner or driver cannot be traced. We, therefore, order as follows: 1) Accused has to pay an amount of Rs.50 lakh (Rupees Fifty lakh) to the Union of India within six months, which will be utilized for providing compensation to the victim of motor accidents, where the vehicle owner, driver etc. could not be traced, like victims of hit and run cases. On default, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. This amount be kept in a different head to be used for the aforesaid purpose only.

Supreme Court of India

State Tr.P.S.Lodhi Colony,New ... vs Sanjeev Nanda on 3 August, 2012

Bench: Deepak Verma, K.S. Radhakrishnan

Print Page