IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Narinder Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Manuj Nagarath, Advocate for the HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present revision petition is preferred against judgment dated 26.09.2005 passed by Court, Ludhiana sentence dated 30 Ludhiana in FIR No.105 304-A of Indian Penal Code Ludhiana, was dismissed. Offence Under Section 279 IPC 304-A IPC 2. Succinctly, the 22.12.1998, in the area of village Mandiani near Dakha, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1904 Date of Decision Narinder Singh Versus Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEHARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Manuj Nagarath, Advocate for the petitioner. *** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present revision petition is preferred against judgment dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana whereby appeal against judgement of 30.04.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate FIR No.105 dated 22.12.1998 registered under A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter IPC was dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced as under: Offence Under Section 279 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a months and fine of undergo rigorous imprisonment of A IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a and fine of Rs. rigorous imprisonment of Succinctly, the facts of the case in the area of village Mandiani near Dakha, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1904 of 2005(O&M) Date of Decision:28.03.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HARPREET SINGH BRAR The present revision petition is preferred against judgment dated learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track whereby appeal against judgement of conviction and order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, registered under Sections 279 and IPC) at Police Station Dakha, The petitioner was sentenced as under: Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for a term of three s and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to igorous imprisonment of seven days. Rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo igorous imprisonment of ten days. facts of the case, as alleged, are that on in the area of village Mandiani near Dakha, the petitioner, while MANISHA 2025.05.01 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1904 of 2005 driving a car make A one Swaran Kaur, FIR(supra) was 3. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted him to imprisonment, as mentioned above. petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned was dismissed vide judgment dated 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner statements of the reliance can be placed on the post-mortem report Furthermore, there is no evidence vehicle rashly and negligently bursting of a tyre. As such, there was no that could be attributed to the petitioner the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in vs. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 (2005) 6 SCC 1, Braham Dass vs. State of H.P. AIR 2009 SC 318. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned trial Court on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Moreover, the conviction has been upheld by the learned lower Appellat Court, as such interference by this Court is not warranted. 005 (O&M) car make Ambassador bearing registration Swaran Kaur, and caused her death registered. fter assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated him to imprisonment, as mentioned above. petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.09.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner statements of the prosecution witnesses are full of discrepancies and hence reliance can be placed on them. Further, the prosecution mortem report as it did not examine the doctor who conducted the same. there is no evidence proving that th vehicle rashly and negligently. In fact, the accident was a tyre. As such, there was no criminal that could be attributed to the petitioner. Reliance in this regard i the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 998) 8 SCC 493, Javob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another (2005) 6 SCC 1, Braham Dass vs. State of H.P. AIR 2009 SC 318. Per contra, learned State counsel learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned trial Court on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Moreover, the conviction has been upheld by the learned lower Appellat Court, as such interference by this Court is not warranted. 2 registration No.PB-10V-6671 struck and caused her death. Consequently, fter assessing the material available on record, the learned trial dated 30.04.2004 and sentenced him to imprisonment, as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the witnesses are full of discrepancies and hence, no the prosecution has failed to prove the did not examine the doctor who conducted the same. proving that the petitioner was driving the accident was caused on account of criminal act, intention or knowledge Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka , Javob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another (2005) 6 SCC 1, Braham Dass vs. State of H.P. AIR 2009 SC 318. counsel opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that he has been convicted by the learned trial Court on correct appreciation of the facts and the law. Moreover, the conviction has been upheld by the learned lower Appellate Court, as such interference by this Court is not warranted. MANISHA 2025.05.01 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1904 of 2005 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that of the prosecution that the car in question went off to the G.T. road where three ladies were present. The car hit one of the ladies namely Swarn Kaur, causing her death, while the other two narrowly escaped. also been stated that following this incident, the car struck the wall of the telephone department building. 7. A proper adjudication of the case requires a study of Section and 304-A IPC, which are reproduced below: Section 279. Rash driving or riding on Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 304A. Causing death by negligence. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any negligent act with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. A bare perusal crucial aspect to invoke these offences is two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar (2009) 2 SCC(Cri) 502 ‘negligence’ and speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, opined as follows: “6. Section This section cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This 005 (O&M) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that of the prosecution that the car in question went off to the G.T. road where three ladies were present. The car hit one of the ladies namely Swarn Kaur, causing her death, while the other two narrowly escaped. en stated that following this incident, the car struck the wall of the telephone department building. A proper adjudication of the case requires a study of Section A IPC, which are reproduced below: Section 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way. Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with 304A. Causing death by negligence. Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any negligent act not amounting to culpable homi with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. A bare perusal of the abovementioned provisions indicates that the most crucial aspect to invoke these offences is- negligence on part of the accused. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar (2009) 2 SCC(Cri) 502, elaborated on the m ‘negligence’ and speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, opined as follows: Section 304A speaks of causing death by section applies to rash and negligence cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that it is the case of the prosecution that the car in question went off to the kacha path of the G.T. road where three ladies were present. The car hit one of the ladies namely Swarn Kaur, causing her death, while the other two narrowly escaped. It has en stated that following this incident, the car struck the wall of the A proper adjudication of the case requires a study of Sections 279 a public way.— Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with 304A. Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to abovementioned provisions indicates that the most negligence on part of the accused. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. , elaborated on the meaning of ‘negligence’ and speaking through Justice Arijit Pasayat, opined as follows: speaks of causing death by negligence . negligence acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This section obviously MANISHA 2025.05.01 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1904 of 2005 does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act. is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human aff reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. which rashness is the species. rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583 : 2 All E.R. 552) "Simple la enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the epithet can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to visualise a case of death caused by reckless driving in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter; but it is pr 'recklessness' suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of would justify 7. Section cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. sections 299 such acts which are rash of another person. under Section reasonable and prope always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. imposed by law of negligence accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness 005 (O&M) does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act. is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in ess the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583 : 2 All E.R. 552) observed as under : "Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees negligence ; and a very high degree of proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the epithet can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to visualise a case of death caused by reckless driving in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter; but it is pr 'recklessness' suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of would justify a conviction." Section 304A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are Section 304A. Culpable negligence reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree negligence are determining factors. accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness 4 does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the airs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of It has sometimes been observed that in ess the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583 : ck of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees ; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied 'recklessness' most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to visualise a case of death caused by reckless driving in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter; but it is probably not all embracing, for 'recklessness' suggests an indifference to risk whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of negligence as applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Indian Penal Code. The provision applies only to and negligent and are directly cause of death and rashness are essential elements negligence lies in the failure to exercise r care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will Negligence is a breach of duty . In criminal cases, the amount and degree are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness MANISHA 2025.05.01 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1904 of 2005 or negligence of care an consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. 8. Further, (Ex. PW6/A) assessing the condition and proved the said report which states that the cause of the accident was abrupt bursting of a tyre. merely stating that the appellant was an experienced, skilled d Irrespective of one’s advanced skill, it cannot be said that they would be able to deal with all sudden and unexpected scenarios. Such an approach discounts the fact that the appellant the sudden tyre burst. appellant was negligent in his handling of the vehicle, which further caused the accident. 9. Moreover however, the doctor who conducted the same remains unproven that the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident were the cause of her death. Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the prosecution does stand proven beyond reasonable doubt. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant revision petition is 005 (O&M) negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. Further, a mechanic namely Chhange Lal had prepared a report (Ex. PW6/A) assessing the condition of the vehicle. and proved the said report which states that the cause of the accident was abrupt bursting of a tyre. The learned trial Court dismissed this argument by merely stating that the appellant was an experienced, skilled d Irrespective of one’s advanced skill, it cannot be said that they would be able to deal with all sudden and unexpected scenarios. Such an approach discounts the fact that the appellant-driver would also have been caught off guard due to yre burst. As such, one cannot unequivocally state that the appellant was negligent in his handling of the vehicle, which further caused Moreover, a request (Ex. PJ) for post however, the doctor who conducted the same was not examined. As such, it remains unproven that the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident were the cause of her death. As such, in view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the prosecution does stand proven beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned judgment 5 depends directly on the question as to what is the amount d circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.” (emphasis added) echanic namely Chhange Lal had prepared a report of the vehicle. He also appeared as PW6 and proved the said report which states that the cause of the accident was The learned trial Court dismissed this argument by merely stating that the appellant was an experienced, skilled driver. Irrespective of one’s advanced skill, it cannot be said that they would be able to deal with all sudden and unexpected scenarios. Such an approach discounts driver would also have been caught off guard due to As such, one cannot unequivocally state that the appellant was negligent in his handling of the vehicle, which further caused , a request (Ex. PJ) for post-mortem was made, was not examined. As such, it remains unproven that the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident As such, in view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the prosecution does not In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant and impugned judgment dated 26.09.2005 passed MANISHA 2025.05.01 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1904 of 2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludh and, judgment of conviction and learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana are petitioner. The petitioner stands acquitted of the charges framed against him. His bail/surety bo 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 28.05.2025 manisha Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 005 (O&M) by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludh , judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana are The petitioner stands acquitted of the charges framed against him. His bail/surety bonds stand discharged. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGHBRAR) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 6 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana order of sentence dated 30.04.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana are hereby set aside qua the The petitioner stands acquitted of the charges framed against him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARPREET SINGHBRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.01 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment