Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal Of Auto-Rickshaw Driver
The Gujarat Excessive Court docket reiterated that mere driving the car in a excessive pace by itself can’t be construed as an act of rash or negligent driving.
dismissed the State’s attraction in opposition to the acquittal of an auto-rickshaw driver who was charged with rash and negligent driving after an auto-rickshaw he was driving collided with a stationary tractor-trolley, leading to two deaths. The Court docket held that the prosecution failed to ascertain rash or negligent driving, and the accident was in actual fact brought on by the presence of an unlit, parked car on the street at evening.
A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D.M. Vyas noticed, “It is settled regulation that mere driving the car in a excessive pace by itself can not be construed as an act of rash or negligent driving. With the intention to maintain an individual chargeable for the offence punishable beneath Part 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, for driving the car in a rash and negligent method, the truth that he has pushed the car in a rash or negligent method is to be invariably established with authorized proof.”
Further Public Prosecutor Bhargav Pandya appeared for the Appellant, whereas Advocate Tushar L Sheth represented the Respondent.
Temporary Details
The Respondent was driving an auto-rickshaw carrying seven labourers residence from work at evening. Whereas travelling alongside a slim freeway, the rickshaw collided with a tractor-trolley that had been parked on the street with none lights, alerts, or reflectors. As a outcome, the rickshaw overturned, injuring the passengers. Two of them succumbed to their accidents.
Primarily based on the assertion of certainly one of the injured passengers, an FIR was registered. The Respondent was prosecuted beneath Sections 279, 304, 304A and 337 of the IPC, in addition to Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Automobiles Act. The Periods Court docket acquitted the Respondent after trial, holding that the accident had occurred as a result of negligent parking of the tractor-trolley. Aggrieved, the State filed an attraction beneath Part 378 CrPC in opposition to the acquittal.
Reasoning of the Court docket
The Court docket famous that the Appellant failed to ascertain that the Respondent had pushed the car in a rash or negligent method, and that key eyewitnesses, together with 4 passengers of the rickshaw, didn’t state that the motive force had acted negligently.
The Court docket noticed, “PW-3 to PW-6 are the passengers who had been travelling within the stated auto-rickshaw. They did not say in particular phrases of their proof that the motive force has pushed the auto-rickshaw in a rash or negligent method. They solely said that he has pushed the car in excessive pace and dashed the stationed car on the street.”
The Court docket clarified that prime pace alone can’t be the premise for a conviction beneath Sections 304 or 304A IPC. Referring to the choice of the Supreme Court docket in State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998), the Bench noticed, “It’s settled regulation that mere driving the car in a excessive pace by itself can’t be construed as an act of rash or negligent driving. With the intention to maintain an individual chargeable for the offence punishable beneath Part 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, for driving the car in a rash and negligent method, the truth that he has pushed the car in a rash or negligent method is to be invariably established with authorized proof. There’s no proof on file forthcoming from the testimony of any of the witnesses examined within the case that the accused has pushed the auto-rickshaw in a rash or negligent method and thereby dashed the stated tractor-cum- trolley.”
The Bench additional famous that the parked car was the true reason for the accident, stating, “…the accident occurred on account of parking the stationed car which is a large car, a tractor-cum-trolley negligently on the freeway street throughout evening time with out any parking lights or alerts or indicators and within the stated circumstances, no act of rash or negligent driving could be attributed to the accused within the on the spot case.”
The Court docket additional rejected the Appellant’s argument that the rickshaw was pushed hands-free, noting, “Completely there will not be even a semblance of proof on file to show that the accused has pushed the car arms free.”
Holding that no substances of rashness or felony negligence had been established, the Court docket upheld the Trial Court docket’s view as being cheap and based mostly on proof. “The details of the case don’t represent any offence beneath Part 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to this fact, the very framing of cost beneath Part 304 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly misconceived… The trial court docket, after appreciating of the proof on file, has rightly acquitted the accused. We don’t discover any patent illegality or manifest error of regulation within the impugned judgment of acquittal in order to intervene with the stated judgment of acquittal”, the Court docket noticed.
Accordingly, the Court docket dismissed the attraction.
Trigger Title: State of Gujarat v. Bhikhubhai Kanabhai Miyatra (R/Legal Attraction No. 217 of 2013)
