AYODHYA NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the conviction and sentence recorded by Judicial Magistrate I. Rae Bareli under Section 304A I.P.C., and affirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in appeal, have been challenged.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Ashok Kumar Bajpai and his uncle Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari were going to Lalganj on separate bicycles at about 9.30 a.m. on 5.5.1979. Ashok Kumar Bajpai was a little ahead of Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari. THEy were going on the left Patri of the road. A jeep bearing No. M.M.B. 6379 came from behind and knocked down Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari, who fell on the road and sustained serious injuries. THE jeep driver stopped the Jeep and wanted to flee but Ashok Kumar Bajpai and others who were around, succeeded in apprehending him. THEy took the injured Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari on the same jeep driven by the jeep driver to the Police Station Lalganj where a written-report of the incident was lodged by Ashok Kumar Bajpai at 9.45 a.m. Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, after the first-aid given to him at the Primary Health Centre, Lalganj.

(3.) BEFORE considering the question mooted by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it would be advisable to notice the law on the point of rash or negligent driving. The learned counsel for the revisionist cited following cases in this behalf: (i) 1970 Accidents Claims Journal 267 (Rajasthan)-Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan (ii) 1979 Crl. Law Journal NOC 150-B. D. Vittal Shetty v. State of Karnataka; (iii) 1981 Crl. Law Journal 583-Bijuli Swain v. State of Orissa, (iv) 1982 Crl. Law Journal NOC 192-Padmacharan Naik v. The State; (v) 1983 Crl. Law Journal 535-Mohammad Safpque v. State. The law which emerges from a perusal of these reported cases as also the decisions of the Apex Court may be summed up as follows: The death caused must be the direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. In other words, it must be the causa causans ; it is not enough that it must have been the cause sine qua non. Merely from high speed, rashness and negligence cannot be ascertained and there must be direct nexus between the death of the person and rash and negligent act of the accused.