IBRAMSA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ibramsa has been convicted under Section 304-A I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have found that the petitioner drove the bus MDR 2439 on 24-10-1960 at about 6-40 p. m. negligently in Nachiapuram village and hit against one Shanmugham, a boy aged seven years, and caused his death. At the time of the accident the petitioner was negotiating a turn towards the main road after touening the bus stop in that village. The boy Shanmugham who was sitting on the western side of the road ran towards the east at about a distance of 15 feet in front of the bus. Both the Courts below accepted the evidence of p. w. 1, Ramalingam, and P. W. 11, Durairaj, Inspector of Police who were travelling in the bus at the time of the accident and found that the left side head light of the bus was not burning. The courts below did not accept the plea of the petitioner that the bulb of the head light on the left side fused on account of the accident. The petitioner did not also sound the horn or apply the brakes till after the accident with the result that the bus stopped after travelling a distance of 40 feet.

(3.) THE learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the facts proved by the prosecution may amount to negligence in civil law but not culpable negligence under criminal law. He referred to the decision in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) A. G. 578 at p. 583 in support of his contention that, simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough: for purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the telony is established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied 'reckless' most nearly covers the case. These observations have been quoted with approval in Intoor John v. State The above decision of the House of Lords has been considered by the Privy Council in Vishwanath Vishnu v. King 1948 Mad WN (Cri) 64 : AIR 1948 PC 183 in construing Section 222 (e) of the Thanganiyaka Penal Code, which refers to "rash or negligent" driving in terms similar to Section 304-A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is pointed out in the decision that the negligence charged in the section when referring to negligent driving etc is not necessarily as grave, either in its nature or in its consequence as in the case of manslaughter. It is pointed out further in the decision that although the negligence which constitutes the offence of negligent driving must be of a higher degree than the negligence which gives rise to a claim for compensation in a civil court, it is not, in their Lordships' opinion, of so high a degree as that which is necessary to constitute the offence of manslaughter.