Driving at high speed alone will not attract offence of rash and negligent driving: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court earlier this month observed that driving at high speed alone will not attract the offence of rash and negligent driving [State of Maharashtra v. Kuldeep Pawar].Single-judge Justice SM Modak said that the offence of rash and negligent driving needs to satisfy two components - rashness and negligence.Rash driving implies driving at high speed and the negligence component involves not taking proper care and attention while driving.The act will be punishable only if the driving was both rash and negligent."Act of the driving is punishable only when it is rash and negligence (sic). Rashness implies the speed which is unwarranted. Whereas act of the negligence involves not taking proper care and attention while driving,” the Court observed. The Court, therefore, upheld the acquittal of a man who was booked for causing the death of a cyclist and a bullock after the car he was driving had hit them. The man was charged for offences under 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) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the trial, five witnesses were examined, documentary evidence was produced. The prosecution case was that the car of the accused was being driven at a high speed. The trial court, however, acquitted the accused in 2009 which was challenged by the State of Maharashtra before the Bombay High Court.The High Court opined that speed alone cannot be a determinative factor to conclude that the driver was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.“No doubt he said that Tata sumo came speedily. It has to be appreciated on the basis of other available materials,” the Court observed. .From the evidence submitted, the High Court also could not decipher the direction in which the car and the bullock cart were moving to determine how they crashed into each other.“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 observed. .It also said that there was no evidence to corroborate the statements of the bullock cart driver. “It is true that the consequence of the accident are the death of the one bullock and the bicycle driver. For want of evidence, the trial court could not come to the conclusion about rash and negligent driving by the respondent. Even this Court is unable to come to that conclusion for the above reasons”, the Court held. It, therefore, upheld the order of acquittal..Additional public prosecutor NB Patil appeared for State. Advocate Ashish Satpute was appointed as amicus curiae for the accused. [Read Order]