Positioning Of Vehicles Unclear, Evidence Of Rash And Negligent Driving Lacking: Bombay HC Upholds Acquittal In Case Over Death Of Cyclist & Bullock
The Bombay High Court recently upheld a man's acquittal from charge of culpable homicide for causing death of a cyclist and bullock while driving, on the ground that the direction of path of the bullock cart and the spot it was lying after the collision could not be ascertained from the evidence. Justice SM Modak added the investigating officer should have prepared a map of the scene and...
The Bombay High Court recently upheld a man's acquittal from charge of culpable homicide for causing death of a cyclist and bullock while driving, on the ground that the direction of path of the bullock cart and the spot it was lying after the collision could not be ascertained from the evidence.
Justice SM Modak added the investigating officer should have prepared a map of the scene and the trial court should have questioned the witnesses to clarify and record correct direction of the vehicles.
“It is really strange state of affairs, when such matters are conducted neither Investigating Officer has prepared a map/rough sketch, nor trial court has taken pains in recording directions correctly in the evidence. If there is some confusion, the trial Court could have clarified it from the witnesses by putting questions which is permissible by law”, the court held.
The man was driving Tata Sumo Jeep on a public Road. The complainant was driving his bullock cart and another person was driving a bicycle. According to the bullock cart driver, the Tata Sumo driver dashed to the bullock cart and the bicycle at a high speed.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted him of offences under sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of IPC and section 134 (duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person) of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence the present appeal by the State.
The court noted that two witnesses gave opposite directions on which the bullock cart was travelling. As per one witness the cart was going from North to South and another witness testified it was going from South to North. The court noted that there is confusion about location of the bullock cart as well. There is discrepancy as to where the bullock cart was lying between the spot panchnama and the testimony of a witness, the court said.
Trial court could have clarified the directions by putting questions to the witnesses, said the court.
Driving is punishable only when the speed is unwarranted, and driver did not pay proper attention while driving, the court said.
“Act of the 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”, said the court.
Therefore, the court found no evidence to corroborate the version given by the complainant. Even though complainant said that the Tata Sumo came speedily, it has to be appreciated on the basis of our other material as well, said the court.
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1238 of 2012
Case Title – State of Maharashtra v. Kuldeep Subhash Pawar
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 156