Holding

The Supreme Court held that the evidence established rash and negligent driving, satisfying the elements of Section 304‑A IPC, and upheld the conviction.

Summary

On 23 July 1996 the appellant, driver of a lorry, allegedly drove at high speed, struck a tree and caused the deaths of three persons and grievous injuries to three others. He was convicted under Sections 304‑A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the conviction under Section 279 was set aside but the convictions under Sections 304‑A and 337 were upheld. The appellant contended that the accident was due to mechanical failure and that there was no rash or negligent driving. The Supreme Court examined the evidence of the Regional Transport Officer and eyewitnesses, which showed the vehicle was being driven at very high speed and that the accident was not caused by any mechanical defect. The Court held that the facts satisfied the elements of culpable rashness/negligence required under Section 304‑A, and therefore upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to rash and negligent driving within the meaning of Section 304‑A IPC.
Whether mechanical failure, if any, negates the presence of rashness or negligence.
Whether the evidence of the RTO and eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain conviction under Sections 304‑A and 337 IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 279, s. 304-A, s. 337

Subjects

rash drivingnegligent drivingSection 304-Avehicular homicideroad traffic accidentcriminal negligenceculpable rashnessIndian Penal Code

Judgment

A RATHNASHALVAN
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA

JANUARY II, 2007

B [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: ·~·

Sections 304-A and 337-Conviction under-Rash and negligent
c driving causing death ofthree and grievous injuries to others- Held: Facts
and evidence of eyewitnesses proved guilt of accused-Thus, conviction by
courts bdow uphdd

Section 304-A-Applicability-Essential ingredients-Explained
D
Culpable negligence and culpable rashness-Distinction between-
Explained l i-

Accidents: Road traffic injuries and fatalities-Economic impact-
E Road safety measures and strategies to combat-Discussed

On the fateful day, accused-driver of a lorry, drove the lorry in a rash
and negligent mann.er and dashed against a tree by road side and caused
death of three persons and grievous injuries to three passengers travelling
in the lorry. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for
F offences punishable under section 304-A, 279 and 337 IPC. In appeal,
conviction under section 279 was set aside but was maintained under
sections 337 and 304-A IPC. Revision petition was filed Appellant contended
that there was no rash and negligence involved because the vehicle capsized
because of mechanical failure. High Court dismissed the revision.petition.
G Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I. With·regard to rash and negligence involved, evidence of the
RTO is relevant. He has clearly stated that the accident did not occur on
H
774
RATHNASHALVAN v.STATE 775
'
account of mechanical defects. The evidence of eye-witnesses shows that the A
vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and that the road was quite
wide and there was no traffic at the time of accident. Significantly, some
of the PWs. were travelling in a lorry. The evidence of the witnesses clearly
shows that the vehicle dashed against a tree and the branches of the tree
fell on it. From the evidence of PW-6 it appears that though it was rainy. B
season but there was no rain at the relevant point of time. When the factual
scenario is considered in the light of evidence of the eye witnesses the
inevitable conclusion is that the. courts below have rightly found the
accused guilty. The sentence and the fine imposed does not in any way
appear to be irrational. [Paras 6 and 10) [777-D-F, 778-H, 779-A)
c
2. Section 304-A IPC 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 a.re rash
and negligent and are directly cause of death ofanother person. Negligence D
and rashness are essential .elements under section 304-A. Culpable
. negligence lies in .the .failure to exercise reasonable ~d 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. The extent of its reasonableness will always depend E
· upon the circ~mstances .of .each .case. 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
F
t
circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous
or wanton act with the knowled~e .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. The
criminality lies in .such a case in running the risk of doing such an act .G
with recklessness or indifference .as to .the consequences.
[Paras7and 8) [777-F-11,778-A-C)

"'Road Traffic Injuries .a,nd fatalities .in India ·.a mqgern epidemic"
in Indian J. Med. Res. 123, January :2006 .• referred to. · .· H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

.A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 45 of
2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.2004 of the High Court of
Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal.Revision Petition No. 217/2001.

B Venkat Subramaniam and G. Ramakrishna Prasad, for the Appellant.

Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, Vikrant Yadav and Sashidhar, for the
Respondent.

C The Judgment of the court was deliv.ered by

DR. ARJJIT PASAYAT, J.: 1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the criminal
D revision filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the judgment of
learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hassan. The
appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279
and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). He was
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- for the offence punishable under Section
E 279 IPC, Rs. 300/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and
simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section
304-A IPC. Default stipulations were provided in respect of the fines
imposed. An appeal was preferred which was partially allowed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan. The conviction in terms of Section 279
F was set aside. However, in respect of Sections 337 and 304-A IPC the
conviction was maintained along with the sentences imposed. In the revision
petition filed ~efore the High Court the primary stand was that there was no
rash and negligence involved because the vehicle capsized because of
mechanical failure. The High Court did riot find any substance and dismissed
the revision petition.
G
3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows :

On 23. 7 .1996 at about 11 a.m. the i;evision petitioner/accused being the
··driver of a lorry bearing No. KLl 3-4363, was proceeding on Hassan-Arsikere
H '"Road, near Sankenaha!li gate and drove the same in a rash and negligent
RATHNASHALVAN v.STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 777

manner and dashed against a tree, which was by the side of the road and A
;. caused death of Shivanna, Bililyamma, Basheer and caused bleeding injuries
to C.Ws. 3 to 5, who were travelling in the said lorry sitting in the cabin.
Two of them died at the spot and the third person died on the way to the
hospital. C.Ws. 3 to 5 sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the accused
was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and
304-A ofIPC. The trial court took congnizance of the offence and registered
B
the case. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused
examined 10 witnesses as PWs 1 to 10 on its behalf and closed its side. The
t-
accused denied the incriminating evidence, which was appearing against
him, but he did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf.
c
4. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the order
passed by the courts below.

6. Coming to the question whether there was any rash and negligence
D
involved, evidence of the RTO (PW-10) is relevant. He has clearly stated
that the accident did not occur on account of mechanical defects. The
evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 6 who were eye-witnesses shows that the vehicle
was being driven at a very high speed. Significantly some of the PWs. were
travelling in a lorry. PW-6 had stated that the vehicle was coming at a very E
high speed and that the road was quite wide and there was no traffic at the
time of accident. It is to be noticed that the evidence of the witnesses clearly
shows that the vehicle against a tree and the branches of the tree fell on
it. From the evidence of PW-6 it appears that though it was rainy season
but there was no rain at the relevant point of time. F

7. Section 304-A 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 direction 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 G
rashness are essential elements under Section 302-A. 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 H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) I S.C.R.

A a breach of duty imposed by law. Jn criminal cases, the amount and degree I
.I.,
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
B 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.

C 8. As noted above, "Reshness" 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 consequences. Criminal negligence
on the other hand, is the gross and culpable negled or failure to exercise
that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either
D
to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard
to all the circumstance} out of which the charge has arisen it was the
imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.

9. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway J. in
E 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
F 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 hi 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
G imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of
Circumspection." (See Jn re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad.
H.C.R 119)

10. When the factual scenario is considered in the light of evidence of
H the eye witnesses the inevitable conclusion is that th~ courts below have
RATHNASHALVANv.STATI:. LPASAYAT, J.J 779

rightly found the accused guilty. The sentence of six months' simple A
imprisonment and the fine imposed does not in any way appear to be
irrational.

11. Vehicular accidents resulting in deaths and injuries is spiraling.

12. The Editorial under the heading "Road Traffic Injuries & fatalities B
and India - a modern epidemic" in Indian J. Med. Res.123, January 2006
contains some interesting observations. The relevant portions read as
follows:

"The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution
on road safety on October 26, 2005 which invites Member States
c
to implement the recommendations of the World Report on Road
Traffic Injury Prevention; to participate in the first United Nations
Global Road Safety Week; and to recognize the third Sunday in
November of every year as the World Day of Remembrance for
Road Traffic Victims'. This resolution follows the publication of D
The World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention by the World
Health Organization in 2004. This report highlights the fact that all
over the world working age people are more likely to suffer
hospitalization, permanent disability and death due to road traffic ·
injuries than most other diseases. The situation in India is not very
E
different.

About 82,000 persons were killed on Indian roads in 2002.
Official statistics regarding serious injuries are not reliable as they
underestimate the actual number, but it is estimated that the number
of people hospitalized may be 15-20 times the number killed. In a F
do-nothing scenario, it is possible that India will have l ,20,000-
l,30,000 road traffic fatalities in the year 2008 and possibly 1,50,000
- 1,75,000 in 2015. Our vision should aim at reducing the fatalities
to less than 1,00,000 in the short term (2008) and less than 70,000
in the long term (2015). G

Safety measures for the near future

H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) I S.C.R.

.A Motor vehicle occupants : (i) Enforcement of seatbelt use laws
countrywide; (ii) restricting travel in front seat of cars by children
has the potential of reducing injuries dramatically; and (iii) bus and
truck occupant injuries, fatalities; and injuries caused to other road
users can be reduced significantly by enforcing strict observance
of speed limit regulation on highways. Ensuring that bus time
B tables and truck movement schedules make it possible for drivers
to observe speed limits with ease. Random speed checking on
highways would help ensure such measures.

c Road safety strategies - Long term

Traffic calming and speed control; (i) Aim at implementing
speed control and· traffic claming measures in all urban areas and
at appropriate locations on rural highways by altering road design,
vehicle monitoring through intelligent transport systems, and vehicle
D design by the year 2015. This measure is likely to give us the
maximum savings in terms of lives and serious injuries; and (ii)
segregated lanes for vulnerable road users and buses in urban
areas. Non-motorized transport and buses must be provided
segregated lanes on all major arterial roads in urban areas. India
specific designs need to be developed and phase wise
E implementation plans drawn up for all cities.

Vehicle safely: (i) All vehicles sold in India should meet
international crashworthiness standards by 2010; (ii) all buses and
F trucks should meet pedestrian impact standard by 201 O; (iii) all
urban buses to have low floors and automatic closing doors; (iv)
crashworthiness standards must be developed for all indigenous
vehicles by 2010 and implemented by 2012; (v) installation of
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and other modem safety devices·
for assisting and controlling drivers; and (vi) driving under the
G influence of alcohol and other drugs. A long term strategy to
reduce drinking and driving incidence to less than 10 per cent of
all crashes needs to be drawn up for the next IO yrs. Sensitization
of the public to the extent to the problem. Institution of random
roadblocks and checking on urban roads and rural highways.
H Ignition interlock on cars."
RATHNASHALVAN v.STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 781

13. In "Global Road Safety" certain revealing data have also been A
provided. They read as follows :

"THE COMING PLAGUE OF ROAD TRAFFIC INJURIES
A PREVENTABLE BURDEN FOR RICH AND POOR COUNTRIES".

Almost 1.2. Million people are killed each year and 20-50 million are B
injured or disabled, most people are unaware that road traffic injuries are a
leading cause of death and disability.

In developing countries, death rates from vehicle crashes are rising,
and disproportionately high in relation to the number of crashes. According C
to a report published in 2000

• Developing and transitional countries cumulatively represent over
85 per cent of all road traffic deaths

•Kenya has nearly 2,000 fatalities per 10,000 crashes. Vietnam has D
over 3,000 fatalities per l 0,000 crashes.
A

• 44% of all road traffic deaths occur in the Asia/Pacific area, which
only has 16% of the total number of motor vehicles.

•At 71,495 and 59,927 total deaths, China and India, respectively,
E
had the highest number of road fatalities in the world in 1995.-

• Pedestrian deaths represent 62% of all traffic fatalities in Lebanon.
In most developing countries vulnerable road users, including
pedestrians, bicycle and motor cycle riders, account for the majority F
' ~
of all fatalities.

• Eastern European countries represent 6% of motor vehicles, but
11 % of crash fatalities worldwide.

• The Latin America/Caribbean region has the second highest crash G
costs behind Asia.

':' 14. As developing countries increase vehicle use, road traffic injuries
} and expected to become the third leading cause of death and disability
worldwide by 2020. In developing countries, each vehicle is much more
H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A lethal than the vehicles in developed countries, because it most frequently
takes the lives not of vehicle occupants, but of vulnerable road users :
pedestrians, cyclists. Many developing countries are increasing the rate of
motorized vehicle use at up to 18% per year. In India, for example, there has
been a 23% increase in the number of vehicles from 1990-1999 and a 60-fold
increase is predicted by 2050.
B
15. The human toll is tragic. Survivors and family members are affected
not only by an immediate death or disability, but sometimes a lifetime of
psychological and physical suffering. Crashes often result in orphans, and
some victims, as young as infants, spend the rest of their lives in medical
C facilities.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

16. In addition to the devastating human toll, the economic impact of
road crashes is also enormous. Many of those injured or killed are wage
D earners; leaving families destitute and without means of support. Loss of
wages, property damage, and other factors affected by road traffic crashes
represented 4.6% of the gross national product of the United States in 1994.
In developing countries, road traffic crashes represent 3-5% of the GNP. The
estimated annual cost of road traffic crashes in developing countries
E exce~ds $ l 00 billion (US). This amounts to nearly double the total combined
development assistance these countries receive every year from bilateral and
multi-lateral government organizations. Globally, the estimated annual costs
of road crashes are 500 billion (US).

THIS PROBLEM JS PREVENTABLE
F
17. We have the tools needed to combat this epidemic. In the developed
nations, proven methods such as enforcement of laws regarding driving
under the influence of alcohol or drugs, reducing speed limits and requiring
seat belts and restraints have shown significant reduction in traffic fatalities.
Road design and road environment, vehicle design, and road safety standards
G are also strategies that successfully address traffic safety. For maximum
impact for RTI's a systems approach with multiple, scientifically proven
prevention techniques must be employed. Education alone has been shown
to be less effective, and often ineffective.

H 18. Proven interventions for developed countries require research,
RATHNASHALVAN v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 783

modification, and testing for developing countries. For example, developing A
countries face poorly designed and maintained roadways, unsafe vehicles,
drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol, lack of national policies, and
inadequate enforcement. Success will require significant new resources
supported by sustained political commitment."

19. The inevitable conclusion is that the appeal is sans merit and B
deserves dismissal which we direct.

NJ Appeal dismissed.