Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (6) TMI 1004

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or Vehicles Act, 1988 [Hereinafter, "MV Act"]. The appellant came to be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC. 2.1 The Court of VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi [Hereinafter, "Appellate Court"] dismissed Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2016 preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court by maintaining the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 2.2 The aggrieved appellant approached the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench [Hereinafter, "High Court"] by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.100222 of 2018 under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court, by order dated 25.03.2025 which is the order impugned in this appeal, allowed the Revision Petition in part, maintaining the conviction of the appellant, however, observed that the doctrine of merger would apply and since the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC, sentence under Section 279, IPC could not have ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that she suffered injuries. As stated above, the High Court partly allowed the Revision Petition by maintaining the conviction of the appellant, however, setting aside the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under Section 279, IPC and the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A, IPC was maintained. 3.4 Offence under Section 279, IPC relates to rash driving or riding on a public way. It says 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 which may extend to six months or fine or with both. The other section under which the appellant was Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 573 of 2026 Page 6 of 18 charged was Section 304-A, IPC, which is about causing death by negligence. The offence is committed when anyone causes the death of any person by doing any rash or any negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, and such offender shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 4. Heard learned advocate-on-record Mr. De....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assengers asked me to stop the said bus near the cross, and I gave the signal for stopping the bus by whistling. And on my whistling the accused have stopped the bus and the passengers have got down from the bus. And after the passengers got down from the bus, I have told to the accused to move the bus, and while the accused was driving the bus, I heard the passengers the screaming noise and when I looked into,..." 5.2.1 PW6 further stated that he saw a woman falling down from the bus and after the bus was stopped, subsequently, they took the said woman (Shobha) to Mangasuli Hospital, and thereafter to Miraj Hospital for treatment, where she subsequently died. The aforequoted part of evidence of PW6 remained intact during his cross-examination. He denied in his cross-examination that it was correct to suggest that it was on account of negligence of the accused driver that Shobha fell down from the bus. 5.2.2 It unequivocally emanates from the testimony of PW6-conductor of the bus that the passenger had asked him to stop the bus, that he gave signal by whistling for stopping the bus, that the bus was therefore stopped by the appellant-accused-driver, at which juncture the pass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e care or with negligence would not be a justifiable conclusion in the facts of the case. It is therefore difficult to conclude with definitiveness that deceased Shobha had died on account of driver's negligence. The driver acted as per the conductor's indicative instructions. The deceased might have slipped from the bus due to her own conduct less than careful. The driver, in any view, deserves to be exonerated from the charge of acting negligently. 5.5 Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 9 SCC 284], was the case of a road accident involving an issue of rash and negligent driving. This Court expressed itself about relevant considerations and nature of proof to be applied. It was observed that the negligence has to be inferred from the attendant circumstances. It quoted with approval the concept of negligence analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition), Volume 34, Para 1 (pg. 3), which stated, "Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be said to be absent in the instant case on part of the driver, who acted bona fide on the instructions of the conductor in moving the bus. He could not be said to have acted with negligence, much less criminally negligence. 5.8 In State of Karnataka vs. Satish [(1998) 8 SCC 493], this Court observed that merely because a truck was driven at a high speed, it does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. These are relative terms, observed the Court. In a given case, therefore, "rashness" or "negligence" cannot become presumptive, but must be informed by attendant facts, circumstances and the evidence. 6. The dictum of common sense often guides the process of interpretation and application of law, for, the law is also common sense when exposed to certain set of facts and circumstances. In natural exposition, the law becomes common sense. Therefore, the common sense and common wisdom can well be a canon for appreciating the evidence. This is more true when it comes to dealing with or judging human conduct. Applying common sense, common wisdom and common understanding while appreciating day-to-day affairs and natural human activities in the walks of life helps ....