Rash or negligent driving

2013 SCMR 480 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Judicial Precedent

S. 279Rash or negligent drivingConcept of 'culpable negligence'ScopeConcept of 'culpable negligence' could be taken into consideration by court in cases of road accidents

'Culpable negligence' was acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect would follow, but in circumstances which showed that the actor had not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness

Imputability arose from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection

Mere fact of accident, in such a case, was prima facie evidence of such negligence.

2013 SCMR 480 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Judicial Precedent

S. 279Rash or negligent drivingDoctrine of reasonable careDuty of care owed by driver of a vehicle to pedestriansScope

Doctrine of reasonable care imposed an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attained a higher degree when the pedestrian happened to be children of tender years

While driving a vehicle on a public way, there was an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving did not endanger the life of the right users of the road (vehicular users or pedestrians), and they were expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others.

2013 SCMR 480 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Judicial Precedent

S. 279Rash or negligent drivingDoctrine of res ipsa loquitur, applicability ofScopeDoctrine of res ipsa loquitur was equally applicable to the cases of accident and not merely to the civil jurisprudence

Before doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be applied either the accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admit­ted fact

Said doctrine came to aid at a subsequent stage where it was not clear as to how and due to whose negligence the accident occurred

Factum of accident having been established, the court with the aid of proper evidence might take assistance of the attendant circumstances and apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur served two purposes, firstly that an accident might by its nature be more consistent with it being caused by negligence for which the opposite party was responsible than by any other causes and that in such a case, the mere fact of the accident was prima facie evidence of such negligence; secondly, it was to avoid hardship in cases where the claimant was able to prove the accident but could not prove how the accident occurred

Courts also applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur in cases where no direct evidence was brought on record

Maxim res ipsa loquitur suggested that on the circumstances of a given case the res spoke and was eloquent because the facts stood unexplained, with the result that the natural and reasonable inference from the facts, not a conjectural inference, showed that the act was attributable to some person's negligent conduct.

2013 SCMR 480 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Judicial Precedent

S. 279Rash or negligent drivingConcept of "culpable rashness"ScopeConcept of 'culpable rashness' could be taken into consideration by court in cases of road accidents

'Culpable rashness' was acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences might follow but with the hope that they would not and often with the belief that the actor had taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening

Imputability arose from acting despite consciousness.

2013 SCMR 480 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Judicial Precedent

S. 279Rash or negligent drivingConditionsSpeed of vehicle not the determining factor

Rash and negligent driving had to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case, and it was incapable of being construed or seen in isolation

Rash or negligent driving must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances

Person who drove a vehicle on the road was liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result

Determining whether a person was driving rashly and negligently with reference to the speed of a vehicle might not always be possible

Even when one was driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of S.279, of the Penal Code, which was why the legislature in its wisdom had used the words 'manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life'

Preliminary conditions, thus, were that firstly it was the manner in which the vehicle was driven; secondly it had to be driven either rashly or negligently; and thirdly such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life

Once said ingredients were satisfied, the penalty contemplated under S.279 of the Penal Code was attracted.

2013 SCMR 480 SUPREME-COURT-OF-INDIA Judicial Precedent

S. 279Rash or negligent drivingReappraisal of evidenceDoctrine of res ipsa loquiturApplicability to a case of rash and negligent drivingScope

Driver guilty of rash and negligent driving moving the vehicle away from the place of accident after the collision rather than leaving it there

Effect

Accused allegedly drove a bus in a rash and negligent manner with the result that it collided with a vehicle at a turning point on the road and caused death of deceased persons

After the collision accused allegedly moved the bus away from the place of accident and ran away

Trial Court acquitted the accused, however High Court set aside order of acquittal and convicted the accused under S.279 of the Penal Code

Contention on behalf of accused was that none of the witnesses had actually seen the accused driving the vehicle, therefore, in absence of test identification parade, it had to be held that the accused was not driving the vehicle and that he was not identified

Validity

Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it could safely be inferred that it was a serious accident that occurred at a turning point in which number of people had died

After the accident, the bus driver (accused) moved the bus away to a different point

Most appropriate conduct of the bus driver would have been to leave the vehicle at the place of accident to show that he was driving on the proper side and the vehicle which was trying to overtake the other vehicle had come on the wrong side of the road resulting in the accident

Such conduct would have been a very material circumstance and relevant conduct of the driver

All the prosecution witnesses were consistent in stating that accused was driving the vehicle and after parking the vehicle at a place away from the place of occurrence, he ran away

Statements of witnesses were fully supported by the documentary evidence

No serious or material contradictions were found in the statements of prosecution witnesses, therefore, they were worthy of credence and there was no occasion to disbelieve them

Accused was also seen running away from the bus by a passerby

Bus in question was given to the accused on superdari as he was owner of the same

Accused was also identified by the witnesses in court

Holding test identification parade of accused was not necessary in the present case as he was already known to the passersby who had recognized him while driving the bus and had stated his name and, secondly, he was duly seen, though for a short but reasonable period, when he got down from the bus and ran away

Trial Court could not have ignored the statement of the eye-witnesses, particularly when they were reliable, trustworthy and gave the most appropriate eye account of the accident

Judgment of Trial Court, therefore, suffered from errors of law and non-appreciation of evidence

Interference by the High Court with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court did not suffer from any jurisdictional error

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.