In CRL.M.C.6402/2019-DEL HC- Commission of ‘rash and/or negligent act’ is necessary ingredient for offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC, rules Delhi HC Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri [05-08-2022]

Read Order: JASPRIYA BHASIN v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, August 8, 2022: While quashing an FIR pertaining to a case of rash driving on the basis that the necessary ingredients of the offences charged were not made out and conviction of the petitioner was unlikely, the Delhi High Court has directed additional compensation to be paid to the family of the deceased

Relying on the judgments of the Top Court in Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka, Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. , Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another, (NCT of Delhi) v. Jagbir Singh,  Babu Khan and Another v. State and Others, the Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said, “From the exposition of law outlined hereinabove, it is apparent that for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC, the commission of a ‘rash and/or negligent act’ is a necessary ingredient.”

The FIR in question came to be registered in the year 2018 on the complaint of the sister of the deceased, who stated that she had come to Delhi for her medical treatment and was staying with her brother (the deceased). One  morning, while she alongwith her brother was crossing the Nelson Mandela Road towards Vasant Vihar, a Car came at speed from the Vasant Kunj side & hit her brother. As a result of the impact, he fell down and the Driver of the offending Car ran away. After some time, a CATS Ambulance came at the spot, whereafter her brother was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre Hospital.

Initially, the case was registered under Sections 279/337 IPC, however, later on receipt of information regarding demise of the injured/Rajpal Singh Rawat, Section 304A IPC was added to the case.The petition in question had been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR  registered under Sections 279/337 IPC as well as the consequent proceedings including filing of chargesheet.

Coming to the facts of the present case,the Bench noted that though the incident in question was stated to have occurred on March 1, 2018, the FIR came to be registered on March 10,2018 when statement of the PCR caller, namely Pallavi Chaturvedi, was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who stated that she saw a lady and a man who was injured, whereafter she made a call at 100 number. According to the Bench, Ms. Pallavi Chaturvedi had only made a PCR call and not witnessed the incident. Till that date, neither the description of the Car nor its Driver was available on the records of the investigation.

Commenting on the necessary ingredients for constituting offence under the aforementioned sections, the Bench observed that in order to constitute offence u/s 279 IPC, there must be rash or negligent driving or riding, it must be on a public way & the driving or riding must be in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person other than the driver.

Similarly, to constitute an offence punishable u/s 304A IPC, it is necessary that the element of ‘rash or negligent act’ is established. In addition there must be death of the person in question, the accused must have caused such death, and the act of the accused must have been rash or negligent, though not amounting to culpable homicide.

Thus, highlighting the fact that for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC, the commission of a ‘rash and/or negligent act’ is a necessary ingredient, the Bench noticed the fact that none of the witnesses had stated that the Car was driven in a rash, hazardous or reckless manner knowing that the result of such driving was most likely to cause injury to any person. 

Even though as per settled law, the material placed on record had to be appreciated only to a limited extent at this stage, the Bench was of the the prima facie opinion that not only the circumstances surrounding the recording of statement of Bhim Sen (alleged eye-witness) were shrouded in suspicion but also his statement did not inspire confidence. As such, the necessary ingredients of the offences charged were not made out and conviction of the petitioner was unlikely, held the Bench.

Allowing the petition and quashing the FIR, the Bench ordered that an additional compensation of Rs 6 lakh be paid by the petitioner to the wife of the deceased by way of a demand draft through the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks.