Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-A
Rash or negligent act — Requirement of proximate cause — Direct nexus mandatory
For sustaining a conviction under Section 304-A IPC, it must be proved that the death of the person was caused by the accused by doing a rash or negligent act and that such act was the proximate cause of death.
There must be a direct nexus between the death and the rash or negligent act of the accused.
Paras: 17–20, 27–29
Section 304-A — Learner’s licence — No presumption of negligence
There is no presumption in law that a person holding only a learner’s licence or possessing no driving licence at all does not know driving.
For various reasons, not excluding indifference, a person might not have obtained a regular licence.
Paras: 23–25
Section 304-A — Absence of evidence as to manner of accident — Conviction unsustainable
Where there is no evidence showing how the accident occurred or that it was the rash or negligent act of the accused which caused the death, conviction under Section 304-A IPC cannot be sustained.
Paras: 16–20
Section 304-A — Proficiency in driving — Not decisive
The question whether the accused was proficient in driving does not conclude the issue.
Absence of proficiency by itself does not establish guilt unless it is proved that such incompetence was the cause of death.
Paras: 26–28
Section 304-A — Cause causans — Not cause sine qua non
To impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, the rash or negligent act must be the proximate and efficient cause of death without intervention of another’s negligence.
It must be the cause causans and not merely the cause sine qua non.
Paras: 30–31
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 201
Essential ingredient — Proof of commission of offence mandatory
To establish an offence under Section 201 IPC, prosecution must first prove that an offence had in fact been committed and not merely that it might have been committed.
Proof of commission of an offence is an essential prerequisite.
Paras: 13–15, 33–34
Section 201 — Failure of principal offence — Consequence
Where the principal offence under Section 304-A IPC is not established, conviction under Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained.
Paras: 34–35
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Sections 5 and 89 — Owner or person in charge only liable
A person who is neither the owner of the vehicle nor proved to be in charge thereof cannot be convicted under Sections 5 or 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Paras: 11–12
Precedents
-
Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, 4 Bom LR 679 — approved
-
Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (1965) 2 SCR 622 — followed
-
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1953) SCR 94 — followed
-
Juggankhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 14 — distinguished
ANALYSIS OF FACTS
-
The first appellant was driving a jeep with only a learner’s licence, without a trainer beside him.
-
The jeep struck a pedestrian, causing serious injuries.
-
The appellants placed the injured in the jeep to take him for treatment.
-
The injured died on the way.
-
The appellants cremated the body.
-
No eyewitness spoke to the manner of driving or circumstances of the accident.
-
High Court itself recorded that there were no witnesses establishing rash or negligent driving.
ANALYSIS OF LAW
I. Scope of Section 304-A IPC
The Court reiterated the settled legal position that:
-
Mere negligence is insufficient.
-
The rash or negligent act must be the proximate cause of death.
-
There must be a direct causal connection.
The Court expressly reaffirmed:
“There must be direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash or negligent act of the accused.”
Learner’s licence — No automatic criminal liability
The High Court had presumed negligence solely because the accused possessed only a learner’s licence.
The Supreme Court rejected this approach and held:
-
Possession of learner’s licence does not imply lack of driving skill.
-
No legal presumption exists that such a driver is incapable of controlling the vehicle.
-
Prosecution must prove actual rashness or negligence.
Absence of evidence fatal
The Court noted:
-
Prosecution failed to prove how the accident occurred.
-
Possibility that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased could not be ruled out.
-
No material established that the accused’s act caused the death.
Reaffirmation of Kurban Hussein principle
The Court applied the ratio in Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwalla, holding:
-
Even where negligence exists, criminal liability arises only when the negligent act is the direct and proximate cause of death.
Section 201 IPC
The Court reiterated:
-
Proof of disappearance of evidence alone is insufficient.
-
Prosecution must first establish commission of an offence.
-
When Section 304-A fails, Section 201 automatically fails.
RATIO DECIDENDI
1. Section 304-A IPC
A conviction under Section 304-A IPC can be sustained only when the prosecution proves that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the direct and proximate cause of death; mere possession of a learner’s licence or absence of proficiency in driving does not create criminal liability.
2. Section 201 IPC
Proof that an offence has in fact been committed is an essential prerequisite for conviction under Section 201 IPC; where the principal offence is not established, conviction under Section 201 cannot stand.
FINAL DECISION
| Charge | Result |
|---|---|
| Section 304-A IPC | Conviction set aside |
| Section 201 IPC | Conviction set aside |
| Motor Vehicles Act (Appellant 2) | Conviction set aside |
| Motor Vehicles Act (Appellant 1) | Conviction sustained |
| Result | Appeal allowed |
LEGAL IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION
-
Authoritative reaffirmation of proximate cause doctrine under Section 304-A IPC
-
Establishes that driving without licence is not per se criminal negligence
-
Confirms that criminal liability cannot rest on presumption
-
Strengthens distinction between civil negligence and criminal negligence
No comments:
Post a Comment