Sardari Lal vs State

Hari Swarup, J.—This revision has been filed by the applicant against his conviction u/s 338 IPC and the sentence of one year''s R.I. awarded for the offence.

The prosecution case, in brief, was that the applicant had on 14-7-1970 at about 4.45 P.M. struck the cycle of Vijay Singh who was coming on his cycle with one Bishamber. The accident caused injury to Vijay Singh and his right leg had to be amputated. Vijai Singh was coming on his cycle on the left side of the road. He was going from Bulandshahr side to Delhi side. According to the prosecution the truck came from the opposite direction and struck the cycle of Vijai Singh and caused injury to his right leg; it was coming not only at a high speed, but was being driven rashly and negligently.

The accused pleaded not guilty. At the subsequent stage in the trial he took the defence that the truck was coming not from the opposite direction but from the same direction from which Vijai Singh was going on the cycle and that there was another cycle with which Vijai Singh collided and got himself struck against the truck. On the basis of this defence it was contended that the accused could not be held guilty of driving the truck either rashly or negligently.

The trial court believing the prosecution version, held the accused guilty of the offence u/s 338 IPC and sentenced him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the appellate court re-examined the evidence and arrived at the same conclusion. According to the appellate court''s finding the defence version was not true. The appellate court has believed the testimony of Vijai Singh and has recorded a finding that the truck came from the opposite direction. Nothing has been shown on the basis of which it may be possible for me to hold that the finding recorded by the courts below is either perverse or suffers from some error. Besides the direct evidence of eye witnesses there is also the evidence of PW 1 Gopi Chand who had examined the vehicle after the accident. He had found blood stains on the right wheel of the truck. This fully corroborates the testimony of Vijai Singh and belies the story of the defence that the truck was moving in the same side in which the cycle was going. If the truck had been coming from the same side blood stains should have been on the left wheel and not the right wheel. The prosecution version thus stands fully proved.

Thus it stands proved from the evidence that the truck was coming from the opposite direction, was moving on the wrong side of the road and had struck the man on the cycle by the right wheel of the truck. The cyclist was on his side when the accident took place. The evidence further is that the truck was going fast even though the road was running inside the city. There is no evidence to prove that the driver had done anything to avoid the accident.

The question then remains whether the act of the accused was such as to make it punishable u/s 338 IPC. Section 338 IPC provides:

Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

The act of driving the truck in the manner the accused did, was without doubt such which had endangered human life and the personal safety of others going on the road. A person is, said to act rashly if he acts without: caring about the consequences of his I action; or if he acts recklessly or with such over-boldness that he loses the consciousness of the effect of his act. A person acting to achieve a desired result without realising that the con duct may produce other than the desired result is said to act rashly. He is indifferent as to whether any harmful result does or does not occur. Whether an act is rash or not depends on the mental attitude of the actor, which has to be inferred from the attending circumstances. Negligence indicates a duffle rent state of mind from that of rashness, though it belongs to the same genus. Negligence refers to want of proper care and caution. A person is said to act negligently if he acts without the required caution to prevent an undesirable result, even though it was not intended. As stated in "Russel on Grime" Vol. I, p. 42, reckless man is one who, while aiming at an end which he desires to attain, consciously takes the risk of bringing about some other result also". In the same phraseology, a negligent man is one who, while aiming at an end which he desires to attain, proceeds to attain it without exercise of due caution to prevent the bringing about some other result also. In, the present case the applicant was aiming to drive the truck to a particular destination, he took the risk consciously of bringing about the accident by going towards the wrong side of the road, and also did not exercise the caution necessary to prevent the accident.

The circumstances proved by the prosecution go to indicate that the applicant was not only negligent in driving the truck but the accident had resulted due to such lack of caution on the part of the driver that his act amounted to a reckless act, The evidence of Gopi Nath is that the brakes were in order. There is no evidence that the applicant had applied the brakes. If he had applied the brakes, the accident might have been averted. It was due to his negligence that the accident had resulted. His going on the wrong side of the road with a high speed inside the city pre-ciats are enough to prove that he was I not caring about the unwanted consequences ; his act must accordingly be deemed to be also a rash act. As grie vous hurt had been caused due to the applicant''s rash and negligent driving of the truck, he was rightly convicted u/s 338 IPC.

Learned Sessions Judge has given valid reasons also for imposing penalty of one year''s rigorous imprisonment. The time of the accident was 4.45 P.M. in the month of July when there was broad day light and there was no difficulty of visibility. The road was in the heart of the city. The accident was serious enough to necessitate the amputation of one leg of the victim. The sentence awarded, therefore, cannot be said to be excessive.

In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.