LAWS(KER)-1991-12-24

VIJAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On December 03, 1991
VIJAYAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE accused is the appellant. The police charge and court charge against him were under S. 304 of the Indian Penal Code. But he was convicted under Ss. 304-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentences awarded are rigorous imprisonment for one year and three months respectively.

(2.) DECEASED, aged 75, and the appellant were owners of adjacent paddy fields. They had some boundary dispute, which is the motive alleged. The case is that on 23-10-1987, at about 6-30 a. m. , while the deceased was in the varamba, he was forcibly pushed by the appellant resulting in the former falling into the paddy field and having an instantaneous death. It is also alleged that the deceased was a heart patient and this fact, known to the appellant, accelerated the death.

(3.) S. 304-A penalizes only causing of death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wantom act with the knowledge that it is so, but without the intention to cause injury or knowledge that injury will be caused. It is only breaking a positive duty to be careful. Criminality in the case of a rashness lies only in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and indifference to consequences, a conduct which involves unjustified risk. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act and is opposed to a deliberate act. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. In rashness, there may be the consciousness that the mischievous or illegal consequences may follow, but the act is done with the hope that they will not. In negligence, even that consciousness is absent. Negligence is acting without awareness that harmful or mischievous consequences will follow, but, in circumstances which show that if the actor exercised caution incumbent upon him, he would have had the awareness of the consequences of the act. Negligence is conduct which will fully falls below the standard for protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. It is breach of duty imposed by law.