To be guilty of an offence under Section 279, I.P.C., accused must drive a vehicle in such a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Both the ingredients must be satisfied.
Image Source: i.ytimg.com
The accused must have derived the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. And the driving in a rash or negligent manner must be such as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 279, I.P.C., takes into account the potential danger or the possibility of danger to life or injury to persons on account of rash or negligent driving. The absence of any person inside the car with which there was collision as a result of rash or negligent driving is not by itself a circumstance to absolve from liability under Section 279, I.P.C.
The word “injury” denotes “any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property”. Therefore, negligent or rash driving which may cause harm to the property of a person is covered by Section 279, I.P.C.
Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening.
The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him, and that if he would have had the consciousness, the imputability arises from the neglect of the civic duty of circumstances.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Unless the rashness or negligence of the accused in doing the act complained of is proved, the conviction of the accused is bad. Whether the driver of a bus was prosecuted under Sections 304-A and 279, I.P.C., for carrying on bus roof certain corrugated iron sheets which fell down due to jolting while bus was being driven on a kutcha road as a result of which some persons were injured and one of them died and Investigation Officer made no mention of any attempt on his part to find the said sheets or discover them nor did the prosecution care to find out who the owner of the bus was and who had loaded them, the driver would not be liable for conviction under the above sections.
Unless the driver could be held to be entirely responsible for loading the iron sheets and putting them in a negligent manner or not tying them properly, his conviction would not be sustainable. In determining whether he is negligent and rash, the standard of reasonable care is which is that reasonably to be demanded in the circumstances.
The driver on the public way must even anticipate the negligent acts of the road users which are reasonably foreseeable.