Doctrine Of Contributory Negligence No Defence To Criminal Action, Rash Driver Liable U/S 304A IPC Even If Victim Was Negligent: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal actions, and a driver who commits an accident by driving rashly and negligently, which leads to the death of a person, is liable under Section 304A of IPC, even if there has been a degree of negligence on part of the victim.For context- the Court was dealing with an appeal against...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal actions, and a driver who commits an accident by driving rashly and negligently, which leads to the death of a person, is liable under Section 304A of IPC, even if there has been a degree of negligence on part of the victim.
For context- the Court was dealing with an appeal against the conviction of an APSRTC bus driver under Section 304A of IPC, who ran over an old lady without blowing horn or consulting the conductor before moving the bus, and pleaded that the deceased, being elderly, was herself responsible for the accident as she attempted to cross the bus negligently and suddenly, which left the petitioner no time to avoid the accident.
Upholding the conviction, the Justice Mallikarjuna Rao held,
“This Court is of the view that the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal actions. Contributory negligence of the victim is no defence against a charge under 304A of the IPC. The accused will be liable even though there has been a degree of negligence on the part of the victim. A driver must anticipate reasonably foreseeable negligent acts of road users.”
Noting that failure of the driver to take precautions such as— sounding the horn, waiting a reasonable period, or seeking assistance from the conductor before moving the bus, constitutes negligence, the Single Judge added,
“The established legal standard mandates that, before setting a bus in motion, the driver must diligently observe the surroundings to ensure safety. This duty of care is especially critical at a bus stop, where the presence of passengers and pedestrians demands heightened vigilance...if the deceased suddenly crossed the path of the bus while it was in motion, the driver might not have had adequate time to avoid the accident. Even in such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the driver, who is generally the most knowledgeable witness regarding the accident, to explain the sequence of events leading to the unfortunate incident.”
The petitioner, while rashly and negligently driving a bus, caused the death of a woman aged approximately 75 years. In light of the same, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the conviction by filing an appeal before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner approached the High Court.
While the petitioner, on one hand, sought reversal of the conviction and pleaded contributory negligence on part of the deceased, the State, on the other hand, supported the conviction and urged that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Essentially, the Court was to determine whether the rash and negligent act of the petitioner caused the accident and the resultant death of the deceased. It noted that in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, the petitioner did not reveal that he exercised requisite precautions before starting the vehicle. In this regard, the Court observed,
“The accused simply responded with 'not true' during the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In matters of this nature, particularly involving road traffic accidents, the revision petitioner/accused, being a direct participant in the incident, is expected to provide his version of events, either orally or in writing, at least during the recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The purpose of recording the accused's statement in such cases is not a mere procedural formality, but serves a dual purpose: it offers the accused an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances and assists the Court in evaluating the defence, if any.”
In the absence of a statement under Section 313 CrPC which could clarify how the accident occurred, the Court observed,
“The absence of such a defence or clarification further undermines the accused's stand and strongly suggests negligence or a failure to meet the standard duty of care expected from a vehicle operator. The accused driver failed to exercise the highest degree of caution required of a public bus operator.”
However, sentence reduction was also pleaded as the petitioner was aged 26 years and was the sole-breadwinner of the family with no criminal antecedents. Against this backdrop, the Court observed,
“True that in the instant case, the petitioner/accused has been found guilty of offences punishable under Section 304A of the IPC for driving rashly and negligently, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no allegation that the accused was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his ability to drive at the time of the accident. The act was one of rash and negligent driving simpliciter, and not one involving inebriation, a factor which, if present, would have constituted an aggravated and despicable offence warranting a stricter and more severe sentence.”
Noting that the doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal law, however, it may be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing, the Court reduced the quantum of sentence to three months.
Thus, the criminal revision case was partially allowed.
Case Details:
Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1778/2009
Case Title: ISLAVATH TARU NAIK v THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH