Moulasab vs. State of Karnataka - (High Court of Karnataka) (11 Jun 2018)

Not Necessary That Offending Vehicle Must Have Over Speeded To Constitute ‘Rash And Negligent’ Driving

MANU/KA/2050/2018

Motor Vehicles

By way of this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by learned Sessions Court whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court which held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304 A and under Section 134 r/w. Section 187 of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988.

Petitioner submits that the courts below ignored the fact that near the place where the alleged accident has taken place there were speed breakers and traffic signals, as such, it was impossible for the alleged offending vehicle to go in a high speed. On the contrary, respondent submits that regarding the place of offence the explanation given by the witness go to show that the place shown in the panchanama and the place stated by the eye-witnesses are one and the same. He also submitted that, even if there is any minor discrepancy or variations they are immaterial and can be ignored.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged place of accident was a traffic hit area and there were speed breakers as well the traffic signals, as such the alleged offending vehicle lorry could not run in high speed in that area, by itself cannot be taken that rash or negligent driving in the said area was not possible. By the word ‘rash driving it cannot be automatically imagined that the vehicle alleged to be rash in its driving should also necessarily be coupled with high speed.

In Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all.

The Court held, inter alia, to constitute a rash and negligent driving it is not necessary that the offending vehicle must have always exceeded its speed limit or over speeded. Failure to exercise the required care and caution expected to be taken by a driver in a circumstance, in which he was driving would constitute a negligent driving. An act of driving done without due care and caution though not coupled with high speed still results into a rash driving. Thus judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court, do not posses any illegality or perversity to interfere with. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

Tags : MOTOR VEHICLE RASH NEGLIGENT DRIVING