LexPRABHAKARAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'\ A PRABHAKARAN v. STA TE OF KERALA JUNE 21, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: Section 304A-Causing death by negligence-Negligence and C rashness-Essential attributes of-Distinction between knowledge and intention-A boy aged 10 years was run over by a bus driven by the accused-- Trial court found that no intention had been proved but, at the same time, held that the accused acted with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death-Hence, the accused was convicted under S.304 part 11-High Court D confirmed the conviction-Correctness of-Held:S.304A applies to rash and negligent acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused-This section does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death- A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately-Negligence is the genes of which rashness is the species-Negligence and rashness are essential elements E under S.304A--Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care-Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk-Jn a criminal case, the/aillount and degree of negligence are determining factors-Whether the con<luct of the accused amounted to culpable rashness or negligence ·depends directly on the amount of care and circumspection F which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case-Criminal rashness means an act done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused-On facts, conviction is under S.304A and not under S.304 Part 11-Conviction altered to one under S.304A. Words and Phrases: "negligence" and "rashness "-Meaning of-In the context of Section 304A of the Penal Code, 1860. 1141 G H 1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R. A According to the prosecution, a boy aged 10 years was run over by a bus driven by the appellant-accused. During the investigation it was revealed that the bus was being driven with a very high speed and therefore, the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. The trial court found that no intention had been proved in the case, but, B at the same time, held that the accused acted with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Hence, the trial court held that the act committed by the appellant was culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ftve years. The High Court did not accept the stand that the C case was covered under Section 304A IPC and confirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal in part, the court HELD: 1.1. Section 304A of the Penal Code, 1860. applies to rash and D negligent acts and does notapply to causes where death has been voluntarily caused. This Section obviously does not apply to cases w'1ere there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all.probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act. (Para 51 (1145-B-C) E 1.2. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it A rash'act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genes of which rashness is the F species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. (Para 5) (1145-C-DI G H Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecution, (1937) AC 576, referred to. 2. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A. Culpable negligences lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences wiil follow but with the hope , - ' --. PRABHAKARAN v. ST ATE OF KERALA 1143 that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In a criminal A case, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. The question whether
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.