Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Dharwad bench of Karnataka High Court observed that ‘rash driving’ cannot necessarily always mean that the offending vehicle had over-speeded. The observation was made on 11th June 2018 by Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry while dismissing the criminal revision petition by a lorry driver who was convicted by the trial court U/s. 279, 304(A) of IPC and U/s. 134 r/w. 137 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The driver of the lorry was accused of hitting a cyclist from its hind side, due to which the victim had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. The petitioner has argued that there was no cogent material to prove the acts of the accused and due to the presence of speed breakers and traffic signals near the alleged place of accident, the vehicle could not have over-speeded, as a result of which it could not be negligent or rash. The court rejecting the contention of the petitioner expressed that mere presence of speed breakers and traffic signals cannot negate the fact that ‘rash and negligent driving’ wasn’t possible in the said area. Placing reliance on the apex court judgments of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan which laid down the principles of negligence and Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P. which laid the principles behind constitution of a rash act, the court observed that it was not necessary to have always exceeded the speed limit in order to constitute a rash and negligent driving. It is rather, the failure to exercise care and caution expected by the driver in a given circumstance which constitutes rash and negligent driving. The accused had failed to exercise due care and caution and though not coupled with high speed, it still resulted into rash driving.
Thus, the court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits and the accused has to serve the sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 2000 with default as given by the trial court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824