RATHNASHALVAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 11-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
RATHNASHALVAN 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
JANUARY II, 2007 
[DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 304-A and 337-Conviction under-Rash and negligent 
driving causing death of three and grievous injuries to others- Held: Facts 
and evidence of eyewitnesses proved guilt of accused-Thus, conviction by 
courts bdow uphdd 
Section 304-A-Applicability-Essential ingredients-Explained 
Culpable negligence and culpable rashness-Distinction between-
·~· 
Explained 
l 
i-
Accidents: Road traffic injuries and fatalities-Economic impact-
E 
Road safety measures and strategies to combat-Discussed 
F 
On the fateful day, accused-driver of a lorry, drove the lorry in a rash 
and negligent mann.er and dashed against a tree by road side and caused 
death of three persons and grievous injuries to three passengers travelling 
in the lorry. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for 
offences punishable under section 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC. In appeal, 
conviction under section 279 was set aside but was maintained under 
sections 337 and 304-A IPC. Revision petition was filed Appellant contended 
that there was no rash and negligence involved because the vehicle capsized 
because of mechanical failure. High Court dismissed the revision.petition. 
G 
Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. With·regard to rash and negligence involved, evidence of the 
RTO is relevant. He has clearly stated that the accident did not occur on 
774 
.. 
t 
RATHNASHALVAN v.STATE 
775 
' 
account of mechanical defects. The evidence of eye-witnesses shows that the 
A 
vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and that the road was quite 
wide and there was no traffic at the time of accident. Significantly, some 
of the PWs. were travelling in a lorry. The evidence of the witnesses clearly 
shows that the vehicle dashed against a tree and the branches of the tree 
fell on it. From the evidence of PW-6 it appears that though it was rainy. B 
season but there was no rain at the relevant point of time. When the factual 
scenario is considered in the light of evidence of the eye witnesses the 
inevitable conclusion is that the. courts below have rightly found the 
accused guilty. The sentence and the fine imposed does not in any way 
appear to be irrational. [Paras 6 and 10) [777-D-F, 778-H, 779-A) 
2. Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to 
cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause 
death. The provision is .directed at offences outside the range of Sections 
299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which a.re rash 
c 
and negligent and are directly cause of death ofanother person. Negligence 
D 
and rashness are essential .elements under section 304-A. Culpable 
. negligence lies in .the .failure to exercise reasonable ~d proper care and 
precaution to guard .against injury either to the public generally or to an 
individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out 
of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused 
person to have adopted. The extent of its reasonableness will always depend 
E 
· upon the circ~mstances .of .each .case. Negligence is a breach of duty 
imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are 
determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted 
• to culpable rashness or .negligence depends directly on the question as to 
what is the amount of care .and .circumspection which a prudent and 
F 
reasonable man :would .consider it ,to ·be.sufficient .considering all the 
circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous 
or wanton act with the knowled~e .that it is dangerous or .wanton and the 
further knowledge that it may cause injury but.done without any intention 
to cause injury or .knowledge .that it :would probably be .caused. The 
criminality lies in .such a case in running the risk of doing such an act 
with recklessness or indifference .as to .the consequences. 
[Paras7and 8) [777-F-11,778-A-C) 
"'Road Traffic Injuries .a,nd fatalities .in India ·.a mqgern epidemic" 
.G 
in Indian J. Med. Res. 123, January :2006 .• referred to. · .· 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 
. A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 
B 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2004 of the High Court of 
Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal.R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.