Delhi District Court
State vs . Baldev Singh on 3 October, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHETNA SINGH:MM08(SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Baldev Singh
FIR No.41/2009
U/s : 279/304A IPC
P.S. : Fatehpur Beri
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. : 41/2009
2.Date of the Commission of the offence : 08.12.2009
3.Name of the accused : Baldev Singh S/o Sh.
Butta Singh R/o Village
Islaim Pur, PS Palla,
District Faridabad,
Haryana.
4.Name of the complainant : Sh. Rajesh S/o Sh. Lala
Ram R/o E Block Gali
No.7, House No.443,
Sangam Vihar, New
Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 279/304A IPC
FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC
2
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Acquittal
8.Date of final order : 03.10.2011
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION The story of the prosecution is that on 08.12.2009 at about 11:30 p.m near Pillar M.G. Road, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Fatehpur Beri, the accused Baldev Singh was found driving a Truck bearing number HR690441 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in such a manner, the accused caused death of his helper Banti and therefore, committed offences punishable under section 279/304A IPC.
On the basis of the said facts, an FIR bearing number 41/2009 under section 279/304A IPC was lodged at Police Station Fatehpur Beri on 09.12.2009 at 04:00 a.m. After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 23.04.2010.
On the basis of the chargesheet, a charge for the offence FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 3 punishable under section 279/304A IPC was framed against the accused Baldev Singh and read out to the said accused person, to which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 22.12.2010.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows: (1)That the accident actually took place.
(2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
(3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 4 Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 5 'Rash'as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2008, decided on 2.6.2008, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while deal ing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negligence " held as follows :
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowledge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a indi vidual."
The court would also like to refer to a very recent judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of India elaborating further the requirements of section 304A of IPC. Quoting from Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka, (SC) 2007 A.I.R. (SC) 1064.
FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 6 "Section 304A 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 are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A. Culpable negligence 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 will follow but with the hope that it will not. 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 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 knowledge 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.
As noted above, " Rashness " consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the conse quences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 7 care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public gen erally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imper ative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant/eye witness Sh. Rajesh as FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 8 PW1. The said witness in his examination in chief has stated that he used to be present in the vehicle bearing number HR38J5576 and on 08.12.2009 two vehicles bearing number HR690441 and HR38J5576 were plying towards Ghitorni to unload the building material. He further stated that he did not know who was driving the vehicle bearing HR690441. He further stated that he saw the deceased Banti lying on the road in an accidental condition.
As the said witness was not supporting the story of the prosecution, he was crossexamined by APP for the State, wherein he stated that he did not make complaint to the police. He further stated that police took his signatures on Ex.PW1/A on 09.12.2009, however, the police did not tell him about the contents of the same. He denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the State that on 08.12.2009 at about 11:30 p.m near pillar M.G. Road, accused Baldev while driving the offending vehicle bearing number HR690441 caused death of deceased Banti. The said witness also did not identify the accused Baldev during his deposition before the court. He further denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the State that he was deliberately not identifying the accused Baldev as he was won over by the accused.
The said witness was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused, despite opportunity being given.
FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 9 In the present matter there is only one eye witness to the present case, i.e, PW1 Sh. Rajesh. The said witness in his complaint made to the police stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident took place. However, in his examination in chief, the said witness has turned hostile and has not supported the story of the prosecution and has also not supported his statement made to the police.
Besides the complainant, no other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of the accused.
In the light of the testimony of the complainant, it is impossible for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove through the oral testimony of the complainant that the accused was driving the vehicle bearing number HR690441 on the date of accident in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused death of the deceased, which is the most important ingredient to attract offence punishable under section 279/304A of the IPC.
The prosecution has not been able to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of accident and in absence of such proof, the offence punishable under section 279/304A of the IPC do not stand proved against the accused.
FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC 10 As nothing incriminating is found against the accused, statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and accused Baldev Singh is accordingly, acquitted.
Be put up for furnishing of fresh bail bonds under section 437A Cr.P.C on 05.10.2011 at 02:00 p.m. ANNOUNCED ON 03.10.2011 (CHETNA SINGH) MM08(South)/03.10.2011 Certified that this judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM08(South)/03.10.2011 FIR No41/2009 State Vs. Baldev Singh Under Section 279/304A IPC