Rash & Negligent Driving Caused Death: SC Rejects Convict’s Plea To Convert 6 Months Imprisonment Into Fine

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the sentence of 6 months imposed under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Imposition of fine of Rs 1000 for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC was also upheld.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said, “The Reports annexed coupled with the testimonies of the witnesses does indicate that the conduct of the accused was indeed a rash and negligent one.”

Senior Advocate Parthiv Goswami represented the Appellant while AOR D. L. Chidananda represented the Respondent.

It was the case of the Prosecution that the petitioner was driving his Qualis vehicle, with a high speed and in rash and negligent manner due to which he dashed against the motor cycle of one Dinesh Kailaje from behind who was riding his TVS Motorcycle with his son PW2 as a pillion rider. Due to the said accident, Kailaje succumbed to grievous injuries. His son sustained minor injuries. The Police registered a case against the accused punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC based on the information provided by the eyewitness to the case.

The Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and in default, one month S.I. alongwith 6 months S.I. for offence punishable under Section 304A. The HIgh Court dismissed the Petitioner’s Criminal Revision. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.

It was the case of the Petitioner that the incident occurred as a result of contributory negligence. It was also contended that the testimonies of the witnesses were not reliable as they were interested witnesses who happened to be the relatives of the deceased.

The Bench referred to the post-mortem performed on the body of the deceased person wherein it was shown that the cause of death was blunt force trauma related cranio-cerebral injuries. The deceased had suffered as many as 19 physical wounds. The Bench observed that based on the post-mortem report, the courts below had rightly observed that death of the deceased was due to above mentioned injuries suffered.

As per the Bench, the High Court had rightly appreciated the fact that the width of the road being 24 feet, there was enough room available for the Petitioner who was riding the Qualis to pass through the wide road without getting entangled with the vehicle of the deceased. The trial court also had rightly appreciated the fact that as the road was so wide it would not have been prudent for a person to make a sudden turn which is the bone of contention of the Petitioner to suggest that there was contributory negligence.

Another significant fact was that the Qualis vehicle was at such a high speed that the vehicle of the deceased was dragged for about 15 feet and was not just an incidental collusion.The record also indicates that during the stage of recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused had failed to give a reasonable explanation when the incriminating material was brought to his notice.

“In our considered opinion, the Petitioner has miserably failed to raise a reasonable doubt to probabalise the version narrated by him. The High Court and the Courts below are right in concluding that the act of the Petitioner was a rash and negligent one and have thereby rightly convicted the accused Petitioner”, it held.

One of the contentions raised by the Petitioner was that the petitioner is 48 years old, doing a small business and has old, aged ailing parents. He is the sole bread earning member of his family. It was also submitted that Section 304A of Indian Penal Code provides a punishment as fine and considering the special circumstances of the present case, it was prayed that the sentence of six months be converted into fine.

“In our considered opinion, the present case is not fit for extending sympathy and taking a lenient view especially considering that the said rash and negligent act of the accused has caused death of one person as well as injuries to one other”, the Bench said.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: James v. The State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1038)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Parthiv Goswami, AOR Farrukh Rasheed, Advocates Seraj Ahmed, Shakeel Ahmed

Respondents: AOR D. L. Chidananda

Click here to read/download Judgment