Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"(i) Whether indictment on the two charges, namely, the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC is mutually destructive and legally impermissible? In other words, whether it is permissible to try and convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC for a single act of the same transaction?

(ii) Whether by not charging the appellant of `drunken condition' and not putting to him the entire incriminating evidence let in by the prosecution, particularly the evidence relating to appellant's drunken condition, at the time of his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the trial and conviction of the appellant got affected?

(iii) Whether prosecution evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the . (2012) 2 SCC 648 KL,J offences by the appellant under Section 304 Part II, IPC, Section 338 IPC and Section 337 IPC?

x) Thus, to establish the offence under Section - 304 Part-II of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question; that such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his was likely to cause death.

xi) The Apex Court has also referred to the principle laid down in Empress of India v. Idu Beg [1881 (3) ALL 776], in which meaning of criminal rashness and criminal negligence was explained. Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. After an elaborate discussion and on consideration of various principle laid down by it in various other judgments, the Apex Court held that indictment of an accused under Section - 304 Part II and Section - 338 of IPC can co-exist in a case of single rash or KL,J negligent act. There is no impediment in law for an offender being charged for the offence under Section - 304 Part II of IPC and also under Sections - 337 and 338 of IPC. The two charges under Section

-304 Part II of IPC and Section - 338 of IPC can legally co-exist in a case of single rash or negligent act where a rash or negligent act is done with the knowledge of likelihood of its dangerous consequences.

xii) In State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas3, the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with scope and ambit of provisions of M.V. Act and IPC, and also the aspect that road traffic offences shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the M.V. Act, and held that in cases of road traffic or motor vehicle offences, prosecution under the provisions of IPC is without sanction of law, and recourse to the provisions of the IPC would be unsustainable in law. The Apex Court referring to various provisions of IPC and also M.V. Act, held that M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation, the primary objective being to provide a statutory scheme for compensation of victims of motor vehicle accidents; or, their family members who are rendered helpless and disadvantaged by the untimely death or injuries caused to a member of the family, if the claim is found to be genuine. The Act provides a summary procedure for claiming compensation for the loss sustained in an accident, which is otherwise applicable to suits and other proceedings while prosecuting a claim before a civil Court. The IPC . (2019) 10 SCC 75 KL,J is punitive and deterrent in nature. The principal aim and object is to punish offenders for offences committed under the IPC. It further held that Sections - 304 Part II, 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC fall under Chapter XVI - "Offences Affecting the Human Body", which makes provision for offences relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing death by negligence by doing any rash or negligent act, and causing hurt or grievous hurt, by endangering the life or personal safety of others. Where the rash or negligent driving results in hurt or grievous hurt being caused to any person, an offence under Sections - 337 or 338 of IPC is committed. Where the rash or negligent driving, results in the death of a person, without the knowledge that the said act will cause death, Section - 304A of IPC would be applicable. When a person drives a vehicle so recklessly, rashly or negligently that it causes the death of a person, and of which he had knowledge as a reasonable man, that such act was dangerous enough to cause death, he may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence, and may held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section - 304 Part II of IPC.