20 December 2024 Rash driving or riding on a public way >> Criminal Law   |   Motor Accident >> Family Law  

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has affirmed the conviction and sentence of an individual for rash and negligent driving that resulted in a fatality. The judgment, delivered on July 8, 2022, dismissed a revision petition, thereby upholding the trial court's decision of a six-month simple imprisonment under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and a fine of Rs. 1000 for the offense punishable under Section 279 of the IPC.

Background of the Case:

The incident dates back to October 18, 2009, when the petitioner, driving a Qualis vehicle, collided with a motorcycle from behind on NH 206. The motorcycle rider, Dinesh Kailaje, sustained severe injuries and succumbed to them on October 21, 2009. His son, who was a pillion rider, suffered minor injuries. The Paper Town Police Station registered a case under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC.

The trial court, on September 23, 2013, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, imposing the aforementioned sentence. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the Fast Track Court at Bhadravathi on January 24, 2015, and now by the High Court.

Petitioner's Contentions and Court's Analysis:

The petitioner's counsel argued that the ingredients for offenses under Sections 279 and 304A IPC were not met, suggesting contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The defense also questioned the reliability of prosecution witnesses, citing their relation to the deceased and alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies. It was further contended that the Mechanical Vehicle Inspector's report (Ex. P.11/MVI report) corroborated the defense's claim of negligence by the motorcycle rider.

However, the High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented. The deposition of PW2, the deceased's son and pillion rider, along with PW3 and PW4, eyewitnesses to the accident, provided crucial details. PW3 testified to the Qualis vehicle approaching at high speed and crashing into the motorcycle from behind, while PW4 stated that the motorcycle had indicated a left turn when the collision occurred.

The post-mortem report, indicating cranio-cerebral injuries due to blunt force trauma and 19 physical wounds, conclusively linked the death to the accident. The court also considered the spot sketch (Ex. P 13), noting the 24-foot road width, which offered ample space for the petitioner to avoid the collision. This contradicted the argument of sudden turn and contributory negligence.

A significant factor in the court's decision was the evidence that the Qualis vehicle dragged the motorcycle for approximately 15 feet after impact, indicating substantial speed and negligent driving. The court found that the combined reports and testimonies clearly demonstrated the rash and negligent conduct of the accused.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to raise reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events. The consistent findings of the lower courts were affirmed, establishing the petitioner's guilt for rash and negligent driving.

Despite the petitioner's plea for leniency based on personal circumstances—being a 48-year-old small business owner, sole breadwinner for his ailing parents, wife, and three sons, and having no prior criminal record—the Court deemed the case unfit for sympathy. The gravity of the offense, which resulted in one death and injuries to another, outweighed the appeal for a reduced sentence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of, reinforcing the legal principle that serious consequences arise from acts of rash and negligent driving.

Section 279., Indian Penal Code - 1860    

Section 304A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 337., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860