High speed driving alone cannot attract offence of rash and negligent driving: Bombay High Court

High speed driving alone cannot attract offence of rash and negligent driving: Bombay High Court

Upholds the acquittal of a man booked for causing the death of a cyclist and a bullock after his car hit them

The Bombay High Court has held that driving at high speed alone will not attract the offence of rash and negligent driving.

In the State of Maharashtra vs Kuldeep Pawar case, the single-judge bench of Justice SM Modak stated that the act would be punishable only if the driving satisfied both components - rashness and negligence that involved not taking proper care and attention while driving.

The court observed, “The act of driving is punishable only when it is rash and negligent (sic). Rashness implies speed, which is unwarranted, whereas negligence involves not taking proper care and attention while driving.”

The bench upheld the acquittal of a man booked for causing the death of a cyclist and a bullock after his car hit them.

He was charged with offences under Sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 337 (hurt due to rash and negligent act), 338 (grievous hurt due to rash and negligent act), 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The prosecution case was that the man was driving a Tata Sumo at a high speed. During the trial, five witnesses were examined and documentary evidence was produced.

In 2009, the trial court had acquitted the accused. But the State of Maharashtra challenged it before the Bombay High Court. The court maintained that speed alone could not be a determinative factor to conclude that the driver was rash and negligent.

The court maintained it was unable to decipher from the submitted evidence the direction in which the car and the bullock cart were moving to determine how they crashed into each other.

The bench observed, “It is really strange that when such matters are conducted, neither the investigating officer has prepared a map/rough sketch, nor the trial court has taken pains in recording the directions correctly in the evidence. If there is some confusion, the trial court could have clarified it from the witnesses by putting questions, which is permissible by law.”

It added there was no evidence to corroborate the statements of the bullock cart driver.

Thus, upholding the order of acquittal, Justice Modak said, “It is true that the consequence of the accident is the death of the one bullock and the bicycle driver. For want of evidence, the trial court could not come to the conclusion about the rash and negligent driving by the respondent. Even this court is unable to come to that conclusion for the above reasons.”

While additional public prosecutor NB Patil appeared for the state, the accused was represented amicus curiae by advocate Ashish Satpute.