Gujarat High Court

Chandubhai Bhanubhai Rathod (Rajput) vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.RA/1134/2017                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                        R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION)
                                           NO. 1134 of 2017


                     FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI                                          Sd/-

                     ==================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                      Yes            No
                                                                                          ✔

                     ==================================================
                                      CHANDUBHAI BHANUBHAI RATHOD (RAJPUT)
                                                     Versus
                                               STATE OF GUJARAT
                     ==================================================
                     Appearance:
                     MR. MAULIK G. NANAVATI, ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for
                     the Applicant(s) No. 1
                     MR. HARDIK SONI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                     ==================================================

                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                                                           Date : 02/05/2025

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

[1] Present revision application is preferred under Section

397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") assailing the

correctness and validity of order dated 24.11.2017 passed by

the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham - Kutch

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

(hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") in Criminal

Appeal No.07 of 2015, which inter alia confirmed the judgment

and order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham - Kutch (hereinafter

referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Case No.5220 of

2007. By way of judgment and order dated 13.03.2015, the

Trial Court convicted present applicant for the offences

punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") and

Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter

referred to as "the M.V.Act") and had sentenced the applicant to

undergo two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of

Rs.10,000/-.

[2] The brief facts leading to filing of the present revision

application are that as per the case of prosecution, the applicant

was riding his motorcycle on the correct side of the road on

05.10.2007 at around 12.30 hours. One Karansinh Devda

suddenly attempted to cross the road as a pedestrian. As

Karansinh Devda suddenly tried to cross the road collusion took

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

place between the applicant and Karansinh. Both persons

sustained injuries in the accident. Eventually, Karansinh Devda

succumbed to injuries. Pursuant to the incident, a First

Information Report came to be lodged by one Shailendrasinh

Sajubha Parmar, being C.R. No.380 of 2007. Subsequent to the

filing of the First Information Report, investigation took place

and charge-sheet came to be filed, which culminated into

Criminal Case No.5220 of 2007. After hearing the parties and

perusing the material on record, the Trial Court by way of

judgment and order dated 13.03.2015 found the applicant guilty

for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338

of the IPC and Sections 177 and 184 of the M.V.Act and was

sentenced to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment

alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/-.

[2.1] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the

Trial Court, the applicant preferred an appeal under Section

374 of the Code before the Appellate Court. The appeal came to

be numbered as Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2015. By way of

impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2017, the Appellate

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the judgment and

order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the Trial Court which has

culminated into present revision application.

[3] Heard Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate

appearing for the applicant and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State - Respondent.

[4] It has been submitted by Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned

advocate appearing for the applicant that the judgments and

orders passed by both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court are contrary to the evidence on record and based on an

erroneous and absolute misreading of evidence. Both the courts

have committed a grave error of law and fact in convicting the

present applicant. The impugned judgments and orders are not

in accordance with law and are inconsistent with the oral and

documentary evidence on record. It was further submitted that

both the courts below have erred in holding that the applicant

was driving rashly and negligently on the public road and that

death of the deceased had occurred solely and exclusively

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

because of such rash and negligent act. According to Mr.

Nanavati, learned advocate, such findings, if any, are perverse

and reflect a complete misreading of the evidence on record. It

was further submitted that no forensic evidence was collected

by the investigating agency to establish that the motorcycle was

being driven at a high speed. It was further submitted that

deceased was not crossing the public road at the pedestrian

crossing and in fact was a wayfarer. The courts below have

failed to appreciate that if a person suddenly crosses road

without taking note of an approaching vehicle and gets knocked

down by the vehicle then the driver of the vehicle cannot be

held responsible for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC.

As a matter of fact, the panchnama at the scene of offence

clearly reveals that the motorcycle did not drag the deceased

person. Further, perusal of the medical report reveals that the

applicant has sustained injuries on the left side. If the applicant

had not taken care both the deceased as well as the applicant

would have collided with the road breaker on the road. As a

matter of fact, the applicant had tried to save the deceased and

for the same, had sustained injuries himself. It was further

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

submitted that the testimony of the eye-witnesses being

relatives of the deceased was sole ground to come to a

conclusion that the applicant has committed the offence. In the

facts and circumstances of the present case, the situation as a

whole need to be looked into. In view of such submission, Mr.

Nanavati, learned advocate has prayed to quash and set aside

the order passed by the Appellate Court as well as the judgment

and order passed by the Trial Court.

[5] Per contra, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has submitted that there are two eye witnesses to

the incident. The factum of incident taking place is not doubted.

The ownership of the vehicle of the applicant is not doubted.

The fact with regard to present applicant being involved in the

incident which led to a death of a human being is not doubted.

The panchnama supports the case of prosecution and therefore,

in facts of such case, the powers of revisional jurisdiction should

not be exercised. In wake of such submission, Mr. Hardik Soni,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the

present application is devoid of merits and further there are

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

concurrent findings, and therefore, the present revision

application should be dismissed.

[6] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and after perusing the material on record,

certain things are not in dispute. The issue of incident in

question is described through the witnesses. The panchnamas

as well as other investigation papers clearly reveal about the

incident. However, the core question is not with regard to the

fact of the incident, but is with regard to the intent of the

incident which can lead to conviction under Sections 304-A and

279 of IPC. The controversy in question is to determine

whether the courts below have arrived at a just conclusion in

holding that the incident in question and the actions of the

applicant would fall under the purview of parameters of Section

304-A of IPC. Therefore, issues raised by Mr. Nanavati, learned

advocate, dwelves upon misreading of evidence rather than re-

appreciation of evidence. This Court is conscious of the fact

that re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible under

revisional jurisdiction.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

[7] The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code

is a limited jurisdiction exercisable if the court below has

committed a manifest illegality or the findings are perverse and

based on misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of

justice. The principles under for Section exercise 397 of the

Cr.P.C. revisional were jurisdiction highlighted in D. Stnbens Vs.

Nosibolla [1951 SCR 284] as also in K. C. Reddy Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh [1963 SCR 412]. In State of Maharashtra Vs

Jag Mohan Sing Kuldip Sing Anand and others [(2004) 7 SCC

659], the Apex Court reiterated that the revisional power of the

High Court under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C. cannot be

exercised as a second appellate power and that the High Court

cannot, while exercising the revisional power, undertake in-

depth and minute re-examination of entire evidence. However,

in the present case, the issue raised by Mr. Maulik Nanavati,

learned advocate for the applicant is with regard to misreading

of evidence to bring the present case in the purview of Section

304-A of the IPC.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

[8] In facts of present case, to constitute an offence under

Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, the foremost and essential

ingredient as well the biggest parameter constitute an action of

rash and negligent driving. "Rashness" consists of an act with

the knowledge that may cause injury and "negligence" on the

other hand is failure to exercise reasonable and proper care or

precaution to guard against injury to an individual. To avoid

coming in the forecorner of "negligence", an individual must

take reasonable care to avoid an act or exercise care for

omission of an act which is likely to cause physical injury to

persons or property. The degree of care required in particular

case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary

according to the magnitude of the prospective injury. Further

to constitute negligence, there must be of high degree or "gross

conduct".

[9] Other aspects, which are required to be observed in the

instant case are qua the observations made by the Trial Court as

well as the Appellate Court. The only reason given by the Trial

Court are at pages 17 and 18 of the paper-book. The reason

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

recorded by the Trial Court pertains to the fact that there were

two eye witnesses and they have identified the applicant.

Further, it has been observed that the applicant did not make

any effort to caution the deceased by sounding the horn or

applying breaks. Other reason recorded by Trial court is that

the applicant had no right whatsoever to take a life of a

pedestrian. Unfortunately these are the only reasons recorded

by the Trial Court. The moot question, however, ought to have

been whether the incident in question involved an act on the

part of the applicant which resulted into gross negligence and

whether such act comes in parameters of Sections 304-A and

279 of IPC. This aspect is neither dwelved upon by the Trial

Court nor the Appellate Court. The reasons recorded by the

Appellate Court are from pages 9 to 11 of the paper book. The

Appellate Court, like the Trial Court also relies on two

testimonies of the witnesses who were present and on the basis

of that testimonies, the Appellate Court has concluded that the

applicant was involved in an act of offence as prescribed under

the Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC. Therefore, the

parameters required for convicting the accused under Sections

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

304-A and 279 of the IPC are not considered by both the courts

below.

[10] In the instant case, there is no doubt regarding the

occurrence of the incident. The deceased had passed away due

to a collision with vehicle i.e. the motorcycle of the present

applicant. However, certain other parameters which

conclusively comes on record are that;

(a) The vehicle of the applicant was not going on the wrong

side of the road.

(b) The deceased was crossing as a pedestrian and on the

main road and not on zebra crossing.

applicant was driving at full-speed or a rash speed.

(d) The victim had suddenly crossed the road in a hurry which

has resulted into the accident. Further looking to the scene of

offence panchnama, there are no drag marks.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

(e) Even the applicant has injured himself while avoiding the

incident and falling on the wrong side of the vehicle which

clearly indicates that he had tried to avoid the incident.

(f) There is nothing on record to prove the aspect that act of

the applicant was negligent enough which has resulted in the

incident. As a matter of fact, it is not disputed that victim made

an attempt to cross road with moving traffic, which has resulted

in the accident.

(g) The body of the victim was not dragged but due to the

collision from the accident, his head banged with the road which

resulted into sustaining head injury.

All these factors gets transpired from testimonies of both

the eye witnesses as well as the scene of offence panchnama.

The facts mentioned hereinabove are enough to come to

conclusion that the act of the applicant was not rash and

negligent. The courts below have failed to consider all these

mitigating factor and has convicted the applicant on total

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

misreading of evidences and further without giving cogent

reasons for conviction under Section 304-A and 279 of the IPC.

[11] Certain judgments cited by Mr. Nanavati, learned

advocate will shed light on the present controversy. In case of

Jaspriya Bhasin versus State (NCT of Delhi) and others

reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Delhi 2345, the issue rashness

and negligence are discussed.

"17. In the present case, the petitioner is accused of committing offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. In order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the following ingredients must be made out:-

i) there must be rash or negligent driving or riding;

                                  ii)    it must be on a public way; &

                                  iii)       the driving or riding must be in a manner so rash or
                                  negligent so

18. Similarly, to constitute an offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, it is necessary that the element of 'rash or negligent act' is established. In addition-

i) there must be death of the person in question;

ii) the accused must have caused such death; and

iii) the act of the accused must have been rash or negligent, though not amounting to culpable homicide.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

19. In Rathnashalvan (Supra), the Supreme Court has elaborated on the law surrounding cases of rash and negligent acts and distinguished between 'rashness' and 'negligence' in the following terms:-

"7. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.

8. As noted above, "rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.

9. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway J. in these words:

"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 immutability arises from acting despite the consciousness (luxuria). 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 had he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civic duty of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

circumspection." (See Nidamarti Nagabhushanam, In re, Mad HCR pp. 119-20.)"

20. The nature and scope of Section 304A IPC was also discussed in Naresh Giri (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"8. Section 304-A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300. If a person wilfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence; a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

mind risking the crime as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304- A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor.

9. What constitutes negligence has been analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), Vol. 34, Para 1 (p. 3) as follows:

"1. General principles of the law of negligence.-Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger; the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two"."

21. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another reported as (2005) 6 SCC 1, while holding that the rashness or negligence punishable under Section 304A IPC should be of such a high character as to be 'gross', the Supreme Court observed:-

"48. We sum up our conclusions as under:

...(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution.

(6) The word "gross" has not been used in Section 304-

A IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

degree as to be "gross". The expression "rash or negligent act" as occurring in Section 304-A IPC has to be read as qualified by the word "grossly"."

22. Considering the facts of the present case, I deem it apposite to also refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish (Supra), wherein the importance of the prosecution establishing guilt of the accused in a case of rash and negligent driving was discussed:-

"4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a 'high speed' does not bespeak of either 'negligence' or 'rashness' by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by 'high speed'. 'High speed' is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by 'high speed' in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of 'rashness' or 'negligence' could be drawn by invoking the maxim 'res ipsa loquitur'. ..."

(emphasis added)

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

[12] In the case of Braham Das versus State of Himachal

Prades reported in (2009) 7 SCC 353, the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that, "Section 279 deals with rash driving or riding on

a public way. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that

it must be established that the accused was driving any vehicle

on a public way in a manner which endangered human life or

was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Obviously

the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not

negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing

death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in

application of either Sections 279 or 304 -A it must be

established that there was an element of rashness or

negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto,

there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was

involved." An act, in order to impose criminal liability under

Section 304-A IPC must be the proximate and efficient cause

without the intervention of the negligence of the other. In the

present case, it is palpably clear that both the brothers were for

the first time driving a scooter to a distant place, one of them

even with a pillion rider, on a public road having heavy traffic

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

and there is no evidence to show whether they both were

complying with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and

wearing the safety helmets, the fatal injury being on the head.

[13] In the case of G. Vishwanth versus The State of

Karnataka reported in 2023 KHC 26549, it was observed by

Karnataka High Court that there is no provision for pedestrian

to cross the road and when the victim suddenly crosses the road

in a hurry and if there is no zebra crossing and if such incident

is resulted into an accident which the accused cannot anticipate

then he would not liable to an offence under Sections 304-A and

279 of the IPC. Paras 10 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment are

reproduced hereinafter:-

"10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that, both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective. He would contend that except PW3, there are no other independent eyewitnesses examined and the evidence of PW3 does not inspire the confidence of the Court. He would also submit that the accident has taken place when the vehicle was moving downward ramp on a flyover and when there was no provision for pedestrian to cross the road, the victim suddenly came across the road

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

in hurry, which resulted in accident and the accused could not anticipate accident, as there was no zebra crossing. Hence, he would contend that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and the learned Sessions Judge on presumptions and assumptions held that, there is a negligent act on the part of the driver which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, he would seek for allowing this revision petition by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by both the Courts below.

15. At the accident spot, the road is running from east to west. The accused was driving the vehicle from east towards west and he was moving downwards in flyover ramp. There is a road divider in between and there is no provision for taking right turn. Though there is a road joining to the junction moving towards Uttaradi Mutt at north side. The left road is moving towards DVG road and the accused was driving the vehicle from east towards west. There is no scope to take turn towards northern side as there is a divider and only course open is to move straight or on the left towards the south side i.e., towards DVG road. The driver was driving the vehicle close to the northern edge of the road divider. Admittedly, there is no zebra crossing and the sketch as well as the admission given by PW3 clearly disclose that the deceased crossed the road and then crossed the road divider and then she suddenly came across on the road which was moving towards Vanivilas Road when she was hit by the offending vehicle. The deceased

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

ought not to have crossed the road when there is no provision for crossing the road. The entire road was divided by road divider and there is no provision for pedestrian to cross the road. In spite of that, the deceased crossed one road and she came from the Bank of Maharashtra Circle and jumped the divider and without waiting, suddenly came across the road in order to move towards Jyothi Prakash Stores on the southern side, which has resulted in the accident. The driver is not expected to anticipate the pedestrian crossing by jumping the road divider and hence, the rash and negligent act cannot be attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle. No doubt there was no wall constructed at the time of the accident though there was a divider and it has come in evidence that subsequently, wall was constructed with an intention to avoid the pedestrian using this path as a short cut method."

[14] Therefore, in view of the facts on record, it is not in doubt

that the deceased has suddenly crossed the road when there

was no zebra crossing and traffic was moving. There was no

drag marks of the vehicle. There is no document on record to

prove that the vehicle of the applicant was going on at full-

speed. The testimonies of two witnesses do not narrate the

incident in a way which can conclusively derive that applicant

was involved in rash and negligent driving. Therefore, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/1134/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/05/2025

undefined

reasons and finding given by the Appellate Court and the Trial