'Rashness Must Be Assessed On Case-To-Case Basis': Karnataka High Court Acquits Man Convicted For Causing Death Of Motorcyclist By Rash Driving

Observing that “rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case,” the Karnataka High Court recently acquitted an accused convicted for driving his car rashly and causing the death of a motorcyclist.Justice Rajesh Rai K, while allowing a revision petition filed by one Harish, quashed the order passed by the trial court convicting him for offences punishable under sections 279 and 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. He said, “The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.” Referring to 'Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity' as laid down by Lord Atkin in the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson reported in 1932 A.C 562. The court opined, “Rashness innately implies recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care where there exists a necessity of care i.e., negligence.” Then it said, “The deceased was inebriated and under the influence of alcohol when he rode the motorbike. As such the degree of negligence of the accused cannot be ascertained on applying 'Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity' since the accused was driving his vehicle in right direction i.e. on the left side of the road, which rendered him unable to anticipate that the deceased would appear before him out of the blue.” As per the prosecution case, complainant Manohara D.U. and the deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar were on 14.04.2018, returning to Bangalore from Mysore on a two wheeler. As the duo approached Ullala Bridge at Nice Road, they parked their motorbike on the extreme left of the road to attend nature's call. At that time, while the pillion rider attended nature's call, the deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar was seated on the motorbike; the driver of the car, the petitioner/accused, drove rashly and negligently resulting in him crashing his vehicle against the deceased's motorbike. The deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar sustained grievous bleeding injuries and he was forthwith admitted to the Victoria Hospital for treatment. However, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on the same day. The prosecution examined five witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused and based on the evidence the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced to two months simple imprisonment. The appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision the petitioner argued that PW.1-the complainant, being a sole eyewitness to the incident, categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he visited the hospital on receiving a call from the accused. He additionally admitted that the accused himself admitted the injured to the hospital. Further, he was not present in the scene of occurrence at the time of drawing spot mahazar. Thus, the presence of PW.1 at the spot as alleged by him in the evidence and the complaint-Ex.P1 stands unbelievable.Further, there are no traces of evidence adduced to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that evidence of PW.1 coupled with medical evidence i.e., postmortem report undoubtedly established that the deceased passed away owing to the injuries he sustained in a road accident. PW.1 being an eyewitness to the incident lodged a complaint forthwith as per Ex.P1 and he reiterated the contents of Ex.P1 in his evidence before the Trial Court. In such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1.Moreover, non compliance of traffic rules resulted in an accident that led to the demise of an innocent person. Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly convicted the accused. Findings: Stating that complainant, the purported eyewitness, neither located the precise place of incident to the police nor was he present at the time of drawing spot mahazar and had stated that he witnessed the accused and the deceased's vehicle at the police station. Also, his signature was affixed on the mahazar at the police station. The court said, “In such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, the evidence of this witness generates doubt in the mind of this Court that he is a chance witness to the prosecution, who appeared out of thin air and later disappeared on adducing evidence.” It held, “Had PW.1 been physically present on the spot of the incident, then definitely he would have admitted the injured to the hospital. Further, he would have also been in a better position in locating the precise spot where the accident occurred to the police during spot mahazar. In such circumstances, much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of PW.1 though an alleged eye witness to the incident as per the prosecution.” Noting that in the post mortem report of the deceased it was opined that remains in the stomach smelt pungent with strong traces of alcohol. The court accepted the...

'Rashness Must Be Assessed On Case-To-Case Basis': Karnataka High Court Acquits Man Convicted For Causing Death Of Motorcyclist By Rash Driving

Mustafa Plumber

Tags