PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This motion is for revision of a conviction under S.112 read with S.89(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute here. At about 9 p. m. on December 8, 1964, the petitioner was driving a jeep of the Armed Reserve Police at a place three miles from the Police Station, Cannanore, when it collided with one Karunakaran who died in the hospital at 11. 30 p. m. same night. The petitioner drove the jeep without stopping. He was charged under S.304A, I. P. C. and S.112/89(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The District Magistrate found:

(3.) It is apparent that, in the District Magistrate's view, an apprehension of assault from an angry mob will be no defence to a contravention of S.89(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The law does not require one to save another at risk of one's own personal safety. On the other hand, everyone is conceded a right of defence of the body even to the extent of causing death to others if the occasion is one of reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to oneself. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Amjad Khan v. The State ( AIR 1952 SC 165 ) such apprehension need not be the result of an actual assault but may arise from a threat to injure, what would entitle a person to kill another must necessarily permit him to leave another to die for want of attention. The command in S.89(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act is only to "take reasonable steps to - secure medical attention for the injured person". What steps are reasonable will depend upon the circumstances of the case at hand. If there are good grounds for an apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the driver, it would not be reasonable to insist on him to face the same and render aid to the injured. On the finding of the Court below, that an angry crowd began to gather at the spot shouting cries for attack as soon as the incident took place, the petitioner's non attention on the injured has to be excused.