Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) [1953] S.C.R. 94.

'It is however, a fact conclusively established and not disputed before me that the accused No. 1 had only a learner's licence at the material time. It is not even suggested before me that accused No. 2 held a driving licence so that he could act as a trainer for accused No. 1. In fact, there is no suggestion by the defence that there was a trainer by the side of accused No. 1. Thus on the facts established, it is quite clear that at the material time, the jeep was driven by accused No. 1, who not only did not have a valid driving licence, but had only a learner's licence. The question for consi- deration, therefore, is whether driving a jeep on a public road by a person, who does not know driving and is consequently unable to control the vehicle, is a rash and negligent act as contemplated by Section 304A IPC." The court answered that question in these words "The very fact that the person concerned holds only a learner's licence, in my opinion, necessarily implies that he does not know driving and must be assumed to be incapable of controlling the vehicle. If a person who does not know driving and is a consequently not able to control a car or a vehicle, chooses to drive a car or a vehicle on a public road without complying with the requirements of Rule 16 of Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, he obviously does an act, which can be said to be rash and negligent, as contemplated by Sec. 304A IPC. It is negligent because he does not take the necessary care of having a trainer by his side. It is rash because it utterly disregards the public safety. Prima facie it appears to me that driving a vehicle like a jeep or motor-car on a public road without being qualified to drive, particularly in the absence of any evidence to show that the person concerned had the necessary experience and good control over the vehicle would amount to a rash and negligent act, as contemplated by Sec. 304A IPC."

Assuming that the High Court was right in its conclusion that appellant No. 1 had not acquired sufficient proficiency in driving therefore he was guilty of a rash or negligent act in driving the jeep that by itself is not sufficient to convict him under s. 304A IPC. The, prosecution must go further and prove that it was that rash or negligent act of his that caused the death of the deceased.

Section 304A says "Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

The requirements of this section are that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by doing any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of accused was the proximate cause of the death. There must be direct nexus between the death -of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused. As mentioned earlier there is no evidence to show that it was rash or the negligent act of the accused that caused the death of the deceased.

(2) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 622.

the mere fact that the appellant allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the appellant responsible for the fire which broke out. In the course of the judgment this Court observed that the cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though that circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out; what s. 304A requires is causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. On the basis of the facts of that case, this Court held that the direct and proximate cause of the fire which resulted in seven deaths was the act of one of the workmen in pouring the turpentine too early and not the appellant's act in allowing the burners to burn in the particular room. In the present case, we do not know what was the proximate cause of the accident. We cannot rule Out the possibility of the accident having been caused due to the fault of the deceased. The question whether appellant No. 1 was proficient in driving a jeep or not does not conclude the issue. His proficiency in driving might furnish a defence, which a learner could not have, but the absence of proficiency did not make him guilty. The only question was whether, in point of fact he was not competent to drive and his incompetence was the cause of death of the person concerned.