The Bombay High Court recently observed that driving at high speeds alone does not constitute rash and negligent driving.
According to single-judge Justice SM Modak, the offence of rash and negligent driving must satisfy two components: rashness and negligence. Rash driving entails driving at high speeds, while negligence entails failing to take proper care and attention while driving. Only if the driving was both rash and negligent will the act be punishable.
“The act of driving is punishable only when it is reckless and negligent (sic). Rashness denotes rashness or unwarranted speed. Whereas an act of negligence involves failing to exercise proper care and attention while driving,” the Court noted.
As a result, the Court upheld the acquittal of a man who had been charged with causing the deaths of a cyclist and a bullock after the car he was driving hit them.
The man was charged with violating Indian Penal Code Sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 337 (hurt due to rash and negligent act), 338 (grievous hurt due to rash and negligent act), and 304A (causing death by negligence), as well as Motor Vehicles Act Section 134.
Five witnesses were cross-examined during the trial, and documentary evidence was presented. The prosecution claimed that the accused’s car was being driven at high speeds.
The trial court, however, acquitted the accused in 2009, which the State of Maharashtra challenged before the Bombay High Court.
The High Court ruled that speed alone could not be used to determine whether the driver was driving recklessly or negligently.
“He undoubtedly stated that Tata sumo arrived quickly. It must be appreciated in light of other available materials,” the Court observed.
From the evidence submitted, the High Court was also unable to decipher the direction in which the car and the bullock cart were moving in order to determine how they collided.
“It is a strange state of affairs that when such matters are conducted, neither the investigating officer nor the trial court takes the time to record directions correctly in the evidence. If there was some ambiguity, the trial Court could have clarified it from the witnesses by asking questions, as is permitted by law,” the Court observed.
It also stated that there was no evidence to back up the bullock cart driver’s statements.
“It is true that the accident resulted in the death of one bullock and the bicycle driver. The trial court was unable to reach a conclusion about the respondent’s rash and negligent driving due to a lack of evidence. For the reasons stated above, even this Court is unable to reach that conclusion,” the Court ruled.
As a result, it upheld the acquittal order.
