1) 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 term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE

Punishment—Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both

The offence is Cognizable—Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.

.

Section 279 IPC requires the following ingredients to be

established by the prosecution:

(a) The accused was driving a vehicle or riding;

(b) He was doing so on a public way;

(c) He was also doing so rashly or negligently;

(d) The act of driving or riding was to endanger human life or

was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other pers

2) you have to deny that there was any rash driving on your part. mention that accident occured because another car coming on the wrong way banged your car on the right side and as reuslt you lost control of the car and hit the boy

3) under section 337 IPC

337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes 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 six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Under section 337 driving rashly and endangering life and safety is punishable

It is compoundable offence

4) The essential ingredients of section 337 IPC are as follows:

(a) Accused did some act;

(b) He did it rashly or negligently;

(c) The act endangered human life or personal safety of others;

(d) Hurt was caused to some person in consequence thereof.

From the above discussion it is clear that the one of the essential

ingredients of the sections 279/337 is rashness or negligence

4) the fact that you took the boy to nearby hospital will help your case . further the fact that your car was damaged as another vehicle banged your car shows that you were not driving rashly and negligently

5) you would be acquitted of offence under section 279/ 337 of IPC

CASE NO:- GR 393/08

Under sections- 279/337 IPC

State

- VS -

Md. Mofidul Islam.

Present: - Sri Biprajit Roy.

A.J.S.

For Prosecution: - Mr. N. Nazmul Islam………….....…Ld. Addl.PP.

For accused: - Mr. Anowar Hussain…………………....Ld. Advocate.

Evidence Recorded on: - 17-08-10, 02-06-11.

Argument Heard on: - 21-01-13.

Judgment Delivered on: - 21-01-13.

JUDGMENT

The case of the prosecution is that the informant Jamal Mondol had

lodged an FIR in the Lakhipur police station stating that on 02-05-08 at

about 11-00 a.m. his son Sukkur Ali, aged about 15 years was coming

towards Lakhipur by an auto-rickshaw bearing no. AS-18A/3856 but due

to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the auto-rickshaw his son fell

down from the auto-rickshaw and sustained injuries.

The FIR was received by the o/c of Lakhipur police station on 03-

05-08 and registered a P.S. Case no. 66/08 under sections 279/338 of the

IPC. The case was investigated and after the investigation charge-sheet

was submitted under sections 279/337 of the IPC against the accused

person namely Mofidul Islam.

The copies of relevant documents as required under section 207

Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused persons. Particulars of offences

under sections 279/337 IPC were read over and explained to the accused

person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 03(three) witnesses. The defence plea is

of denial.

2

The accused person was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

and in the course of examination he stated that he is innocent.

Point for determination:

The point for determination in this case is as follows:

(i) Whether the accused person committed the offences as alleged

by the informant?

Discussion, decision and reasons:

The pw-1 Jamal Mondol stated that he did not see the accident.

Hearing about the accident he came to Lakhipur Hospital and saw his

son in an injured condition. In cross-examination he admitted that he did

not know how the accident occurred. The pw-2 Sukkur Ali is the victim

of the accident. He stated that one Tata Sumo dashed with the autorickshaw

and as a result he fell down and sustained injuries. Then the

driver of the auto-rickshaw took him to hospital. The pw-3 Nur

Mohammad stated that on the date of occurrence along with his brother

Sukkur Ali he was also going by the same auto-rickshaw. He stated that

one Indica car dashed with the auto-rickshaw and his brother fell down

and sustained injuries. He also stated that the driver was driving the autorickshaw

with care.

Section 279 IPC requires the following ingredients to be

established by the prosecution:

(1) The accused was driving a vehicle or riding;

(2) He was doing so on a public way;

(3) He was also doing so rashly or negligently;

(4) The act of driving or riding was to endanger human life or

was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.

The essential ingredients of section 337 IPC are as follows:

(1) Accused did some act;

(2) He did it rashly or negligently;

(3) The act endangered human life or personal safety of others;

(4) Hurt was caused to some person in consequence thereof.

From the above discussion it is clear that the one of the essential

ingredients of the sections 279/337 is rashness or negligence.

Criminal Negligence is gross and culpable neglect or failure to

exercise that reasonable and proper care to guard against injury to the

public generally or to an individual in particular which having regard to

Case No. 393/08

all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the

imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.

Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that dangerous

consequences will follow, but with the hope that they will not follow and

with the belief that sufficient precautions have been taken.

Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that

dangerous consequences will follow, but, in circumstances which show

that the actor has not exercised the caution that was incumbent upon him.

Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the

knowledge that it is so and that it may cause injury but without the

intention to cause injury or knowledge that it will be probably caused.

The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such act with

recklessness or indifference as to the consequence.

In determining whether a person was negligent or rash, the standard

of reasonable care is that which is reasonably to be demanded in the

circumstances. In the instant case the evidence on record makes it clear

that the auto-rickshaw driver was driving the auto-rickshaw with care as

stated by the pw-3 Nur Mohammad. The evidence on record also makes

it clear that the auto-rickshaw was not damaged though it was alleged

that another vehicle dashed with it. From the above evidence the accident

itself become doubtful. The accused in his examination under section

313 Cr.P.C stated that the victim was actually sitting in the backside of

the auto-rickshaw and fell down from there in sleep and no such accident

as alleged had taken place.

From the materials on record and the discussion made above it is

clear that the allegations of rashness or negligence are not established by

the prosecution. In absence of the elements of rashness or negligence, the

charges under sections 279/337 IPC cannot succeed. Hence the accused

person is found not guilty and accordingly acquitted and set at liberty

forthwith.

His bail bond stands cancelled.

Given under my hand and seal on this day of January 21, 2013.

Addl. CJM

Goalpara, Assam.

Dear Sir/Madam, yes, you are correct, but you should strict proof of the same, you will find the said car who is hit your car if any you have evidence in this regard, if you have, you should be place before police and to involve in the case as one of the accused person, at that time your responsible will be reduce. It is the duty of yours to help the boy for hospitalization it will be helpful to your case. it is the cognizable (compromise) bailable offence, you compromise with victim in the case compensation case, but you are not compromised you should take defense, you will take lawyer help in this regard.

1. The nature of accident and what is your involvement can be extracted from the witness during cross examination, you cannot argue these things with police at this state.

2. This will not help the situation if they are adamant

3. You can apply for bail, they are bailable.

4. No this will not b the procedure, it has to e disposed by court only if the charge sheet is submitted.

You have to appear in court

2) engage a lawyer

3) if you reach an out of settlement you can file for quashing of FIR in HC

The offence under section 337 is no doubt compoundable but the offence under section 279 is not compoundable.

Hence you have two options to get relieved:

1) Filing a quash petition under section 482 cr.p.c. before high court seeking to quash the charge sheet with pleadings among other vital issues, the defacto complainant's statement expressing that he would not like to pursue the matter any further since the fault was on his side as well as since the accused has taken care of his medical expenses etc., If need be the defacto complainant can file an affidavit in this regard before high court supporting the quash petition. OR

2. The defacto complainant expressing before the trial court that he had arrived on a compromise with the accused hence he is not interested to continue with the prosecution. This may be informed to the court through Assistant public prosecutor after which the court will orally allow him to become hostile witness and the court may acquit and release you from this case.

Since the charge sheet has been filed, there may be no other method effective than the second option.

1. The accident was caused by the other car for sure, but it is your car which hit the boy, so the police has filed FIR against you. Now the onus is on you to prove that your car hit the victim i.e boy due to the negligence of the other car. If there is a CCTV installed at the site of the accident then you can seek court orders to preserve the footage of it so that it can be produced in the court.

2. Unless the boy compounds the complaint you will have to face the trial.

3. Compromise can be done even before the filing of chargesheet.