Jharkhand HC Upholds Pick-Up Van Driver’s Conviction After Crash Killed 5-Year-Old, Rejects Guardians’ Negligence Plea

On 5 February 2010, a five-year-old child was struck by a pick-up van near his home and died.

The petitioner was charged with driving the van rashly and negligently and was convicted under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC.

The trial court imposed simple imprisonment of three months under Section 279 and one year under Section 304-A, to run concurrently. The Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the petitioner argued that the child had entered the road suddenly, that the Investigating Officer had not testified, and that the place of occurrence was therefore not established with certainty.

Sections 279 and 304-A IPC penalise, respectively, rash driving on a public way and causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

Relying on Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 67, the Court stated that Section 304-A applies where death is directly caused by a rash or negligent act, without the intention or knowledge that would bring the conduct within culpable homicide; rashness or negligence is assessed by reference to the care and circumspection expected of a prudent person in the circumstances.

The Court also held that contributory negligence by a child’s guardians is not applicable in criminal cases.

The Court relied on the concurrent factual findings of the trial and appellate courts that the petitioner drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, struck the child, and caused his death.

It noted that no material contradictions or discrepancies in the witnesses’ evidence had been elicited in cross-examination or identified in argument.

In those circumstances, non-examination of the Investigating Officer did not affect the merits of the case.

The alleged negligence of the guardians did not displace the petitioner’s criminal responsibility.

It cancelled the petitioner’s bail bond and directed him to surrender before the trial court within two months to serve the remaining sentence; failing surrender, the trial court was directed to take coercive steps to secure his attendance.