Bombay High Court says, 'Speeding not an offence, rash driving is'

The Bombay High Court has upheld acquittal of a man whose car allegedly killed a cyclist and a bullock observing that driving a car speedily is not an offence; the act is punishable only if it is rash and negligent.

“Act of driving is punishable only when it is rash and negligent. Rashness implies speed which is unwarranted. Whereas the act of negligence involves not taking proper care and paying attention while driving,” observed Justice SM Modak early this month.

The HC was hearing appeal challenging acquittal of a Kuldeep Pawar

The HC was hearing an appeal filed by the State government challenging the acquittal of one Kuldeep Pawar.

According to the prosecution, on November 1, 2009, at 8.30am, Vasant Desai, owner of a bullock cart, and one Balaso Mane were cycling on a road near village Tasgaon. At the time, Pawar drove by in his Tata Sumo, at a speed, and allegedly dashed into the bullock and then into Mane. The police charged Pawar with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Pawar was acquitted on August 24, 2011. The state approached the HC challenging his acquittal. One of the passers-by testified that the car came speedily when it dashed against Mane and the bullock.

However, Justice Modak observed that the evidence has to be appreciated on the basis of other available materials.

Judge noted speed alone is not punishable

The judge noted that speed alone is not punishable unless the car is driven rashly and negligently.

The HC noted that the bullock cart owner and one of the eye witnesses gave completely opposite statements as far the directions of the bullock cart were concerned. That is, whether the art was heading south to north or vice-versa. The cart owner said he was going from north to south.

According to the spot panchanama, the bullock cart was lying on the southern side and facing the eastern flank. The panch witness, however, said that the bullock cart was found on the northern side of the road.

The HC noted that it could not conclude the directions in which the car, the bullock cart and the cyclist were going.

“With the assistance of both the sides (prosecution and accused), I am trying to understand the direction as per documentary evidence and the oral evidence. We have tried to understand it from various angles but we could not arrive at a particular conclusion,” noted justice Modak.

Advocate for Pawar said investigating officer is not an eye-witness

Aashish Satpute, advocate for Pawar, submitted that there were tea stalls at the accident spot; however, statements of none of these independent eye-witnesses were recorded by the police. The policeman, who was examined by the prosecution, is not an eye-witness to the incident and his evidence is only relevant to what he has seen after the incident, added Satpute.

The court felt that it was “really a strange state of affairs” -- that, neither the Investigating Officer has prepared a map/rough sketch, nor “the trial court has taken pains in recording directions correctly in the evidence”.

“It is true that the consequences of the accident are the death of the bullock and the bicycle driver. For want of evidence, the trial court could not come to the conclusion about rash and negligent driving by the respondent. Even this court is unable to come to that conclusion for the above reasons,” said the HC while upholding Pawar’s acquittal.