Act of Driving Punishable Only When Rash & Negligent: Bombay High Court

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The high court upheld the acquittal of the accused in a rash driving case while observing that neither the Investigating Officer had prepared a map/rough sketch, nor the trial court had taken pains in recording directions correctly.

A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice SM Modak has recently upheld an acquittal of a man who allegedly killed a cyclist and a bullock while observing that act of the driving is punishable only when it is rash and negligent.

“It has to be appreciated on the basis of other available materials. Act of driving is punishable only when it is rash and negligence. Rashness implies the speed which is unwarranted. Whereas act of the negligence involves not taking proper care and attention while driving” the court noted.

The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the State Government challenging the order of the magistrate acquitting the driver of Tata Sumo Jeep which was involved in the accident.

During the hearing, the court was not able to ascertain the direction from which the Tata Sumo and bullock were coming since there were different testimonies of the witnesses.

“With the assistance of both the sides, I am trying to understand the direction as per documentary evidence and the oral evidence. We have tried to understand it from various angles but we could not arrived at a particular conclusion what are the directions” the court stated.

The high court also observed that neither Investigating Officer had prepared a map/rough sketch, nor the trial court had taken pains in recording directions correctly in the evidence. Further, the bench noted that if there was some confusion, the trial Court could have clarified it from the witnesses by putting questions which is permissible by law.

The court, therefore, did not find any evidence that the respondent was rash and negligent while driving.

Therefore, the court then confirmed the order of the trial court and upheld the acquittal,

“It is true that the consequence of the accident are the death of the one bullock and the bicycle driver. For want of evidence, the trial court could not come to the conclusion about rash and negligent driving by the Respondent. Even this Court is unable to come to that conclusion for the above reasons” the order read.

Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs Kuldeep Subhash Pawar