LexKULDEEP SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
""' ;-- • ~ [2008] 10 S.C.R. 1063 S.K.S. Appeal allowed. A KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.1106 of 2008) JULY 16, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304A, 279, 337 and 338 - Truck carrying marriage party met with accident - A/legation that the driver was drunk1 and lost control and the truck rolled down in the fields - Gaus- ing death of four persons, simple injuries to 18 persons and grievous injuries to 8 persons - Trial Court acquitted the ac- cused-driver holding that there was no rash or negligent driv- ing as claimed by the prosecution - However, High Court con- victed the accused on basis of evidence of three eye witnesses after holding that rash and negligent driving was established, - On appeal, held: Evidence of the three witnesses clearly shows that more than 50 persons were there in the truck and the accused was driving the same at a very high speed - Con- viction justified. s. 304A - Applicability of - Discussed. Woros and Phrases- 'Negligence' and 'reckless' - Meaning ot According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day, Appellant was driving a truck carrying a marriage party of' around 50 persons. It is alleged that he was drunk and, lost control and as a result the truck went off the road and rolled down in the fields leading to death of four per-, sons, simple injuries to 18 persc;>ns and grievous injuries to 8 persons. PW-1-constable was an eye witness while ' PW-3 was an occupant of the truck and father of the bride- groom whose marriage party was travelling. The Trial' 1063 B c D E F G H 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A Court held that there was no rash or negligent driving as claimed by the prosecution and acquitted the accused- Appellant. On appeal, the High Court, relying upon the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 held that the rash and negli- gent driving was established and convicted and sen- B tenced the Appellant u/ss.279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. ).._, '-' Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. 5.304-A IPC applies to cases where there c is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. This provi- sion is directed at offences outside the range of ss. 299 and 300 IPC. 5.304-A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of 0 another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under s.304-A. [Para 7] [1068-8,C] 1.2. 5.304-A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under s.299 or E murder under s.300. If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or F knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's ·death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, s.304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not G limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes pun- ishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence, a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driv- H KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 1065 f \ PRADESH ing at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in A terms of s.304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judg- ment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a -· -f result of the crime. S.304-A discloses that criminality may B be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such ' rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor. [Para 8] [1068-E,F,G,H 1069-A] c 1.3. In the present case, the evidence of PWs 1, 3 & 4 clearly show that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed. Evidence on record show that more
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.