Degree Of Car’s Impact By Driver Constitutes Contributory Negligence But It Will Depend Upon Factual Situation: Bombay HC
Justice Milind N. Jadhav, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court observed that the degree of impact of car by a driver driving a vehicle constitutes contributory negligence but it will all depend upon the factual situation of each case.
The Court observed thus in a Criminal Revision Application filed by the accused, challenging the twin Judgments of the Trial Court and Sessions Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav emphasised, “Degree of impact of car by a driver driving a vehicle will undoubtedly constitute contributory negligence but it will all depend upon the factual situation of each case. The spot panchnama and deposition of Investigating Officer reveals that the subject road was having 2 service roads on either sides despite which Ramsaware Pal (PW-3) and Bachhalal chose to ride on their bicycle on the vehicular traffic road. Though they cannot be faulted for that reason, the facts leading to occurrence and happening of the accident need to be considered.”
Advocate Satyavrat Joshi appeared for the Applicant/accused while APP D.S. Krishnaiyer appeared for the Respondent/State.
In this case, the Applicant/accused was convicted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of three months along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. As per the prosecution case, in 2018, when one man and his maternal uncle (victim) were proceeding on two different bicycles, at that time, a car dashed the bicycle of the said victim from behind. This resulted in his fall on the road and he sustained serious injuries. It was alleged that the Applicant was driving that car and others were the co-passengers.
The victim was admitted to the hospital and accordingly, a Report was lodged against the accused. The offence was registered under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC and Section 119 read with 117 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act). Section 304-A IPC was later added and thereafter, the accused was arrested. His defence before the Trial Court was that he was not driving the car since the car was a hired car and at the time of incident an unknown driver was driving the car. As he was convicted, he approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “In view of the above and the specific deposition of the prosecution witness namely PW-5 who was sitting inside the car when the accident occurred, the version narrated by PW-3 regarding 5 occupants of the car is resolved. In her deposition, PW-5 has categorically stated that the subject car was not driven by Applicant. The theory that car was driven by driver of company gains traction on account of the fact that it was a hired car, the 4 out of 5 occupants thereof are specifically identified, post the accident PW-3 saw 3 boys and 2 girls getting out of the car and most importantly the dereliction and omission of the Investigating Officer to inquire and investigate about the driver of the hired car.”
The Court further said that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the fact that the Applicant was driving the car has not been investigated at all.
“In so far as the impact of the car in the accident is concerned, record reveals that the impact of Bachhalal's cycle on the car was from the left hand side and the car did not dash the bicycle from behind. This is what is gathered from the evidence of the eye witness (PW-5) to the accident. The fact that Bachhalal's cycle impacted and hit the car on its left hand side may be due to several reasons”, it added.
The Court observed that one question/fact clearly remains unanswered i.e. whether the car was driven by the Applicant or the driver of the hired car and the car rental company's representative has not stated anything incriminating suggesting whether the car was given to the Applicant or driven by the Applicant neither the Investigating Officer has investigated the above fact.
“Therefore benefit of doubt will have to be given to the Applicant since prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The impugned judgments dated 28.09.2021 and 24.03.2023 are hence not sustainable and are quashed and set aside. Resultantly, conviction and sentence of Applicant is set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application and set aside the conviction of the accused.
Cause Title- Presenjeet Manabendra Sen v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:7)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Satyavrat Joshi and Omkar Nevgi.
Respondent: APP D.S. Krishnaiyer
