JAMMAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, Sekh Juman, is a licensed motor driver. On 10th April 1943 at about 4-45 p.m. he was driving a heavy six-wheel truck of about one and a half ton capacity, along the Anjani Jail Road, Nagpur. At that time another motor truck was standing on that road at the place where the road leading from Ramdas Peth intersects the Anjani Jail Road. That truck was standing slightly to the left of the middle of the road to take in some workmen. It was facing the direction of the Sonegaon Aerodrome from which the applicant started with his own vehicle. The workmen were crossing the road to get at the truck waiting for them. Four or five of them reached the truck but one of them, a man aged 55, who had very nearly crossed the road sighted the applicant's truck and got confused. In his confusion he tried to recross the road when he was knocked down by the applicant's truck. He sustained severe injuries which resulted in his death two days later at the Mayo Hospital.

(2.) THE applicant was tried on the charge of the offence of causing the death by negligence punishable under Section 304A, Penal Code. In the trial Court he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The Sessions Judge on appeal upheld the conviction but reduced the period of imprisonment to six months and set aside the sentence of fine. The Courts below agreed in finding that one of the brakes of the applicant's truck was not in order and that the truck was being driven at such a speed that it could not be controlled at the critical moment, so as to avert the collision. Attempt is made, on behalf of the applicant, to show from the evidence that the findings of the Courts below were erroneous. I would certainly entertain the plea had there been no evidence whatever to afford any basis for the findings, but that is not the case. The learned Counsel is virtually seeking to impugn the correctness of the inferences drawn from the evidence which undoubtedly exists whatever weight might be attached to it. In such a case it is imperative on this Court in revision to follow the rule laid down by Lord Sumner in Hontestroom v. Sagaporack (1927) A.C. 37 as follows:

(3.) IT is said that there could be no negligence when the applicant tried his best to stop the car as soon as the man was seen reverting to the side from which he had crossed the road. Whether there was negligence or not would depend upon the circumstances in which the vehicle and the pedestrian were placed in relation to each other. Whether the man was crossing or recrossing the road, it must be conceded that he was on the road and was perplexed and disconcerted by the sight of the applicant's vehicle coming in high speed. On the estimate of the trial Magistrate, it was at a distance of few cubits and this means that the vehicle was being driven fast to within a few cubits of the man on the road without care being taken to keep it under thorough control. Negligence does not mean absolute carelessness or indifference but want of such a degree of care as is required in particular circumstances. A negligent state of mind is consistent with an intention to exercise at any rate some care as where a motorist, in a hurry, drives quickly down a crowded street and collides with a pedestrian; here, he does not intend to have collision and exercises as much care he can, consistently with his desire to drive quickly. His negligence consists in his carelessness or indifference in exposing pedestrians to the risk of collision because he is not prepared to subordinate his desire for speed to his desire to drive carefully: see p. 1, the Law of Negligence by Charlesworth.