Jharkhand HC Upholds Truck Driver’s Conviction After Crash Killed Son Riding Bicycle With Father, Despite IO’s Non-Examination

On 4 July 2012, a truck allegedly driven by the petitioner rashly and negligently struck a bicycle carrying the informant and his son. The son died at the scene, and the informant was injured.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment, with the sentences to run concurrently. The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the petitioner argued, among other things, that the Investigating Officer’s non-examination left the place of occurrence unestablished and the site plan unproved

Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC formed the basis of the convictions.

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 contemplated by culpable homicide; rashness or negligence is assessed by reference to the care and caution a prudent and reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances

The Court accepted the concurrent findings that the truck struck the bicycle and that the petitioner was driving rashly and negligently, causing the informant’s injury and his son’s death.

It noted that the prosecution’s ocular evidence had not been undermined by contradictions or discrepancies elicited in cross-examination or identified in argument. In those circumstances, the Investigating Officer’s non-examination did not affect the merits of the case, and the Court found no legal basis to disturb the convictions

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