In what circumstances does the law make rash or negligent driving of any vehicle punishable as an offense under the Indian Penal Code? Discuss the difference between criminal rashness and criminal negligence.

Question: In what circumstances does the law make rash or negligent driving of any vehicle punishable as an offense under the Indian Penal Code? Discuss the difference between criminal rashness and criminal negligence.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [In what circumstances does the law make rash or negligent driving of any vehicle punishable as an offence under the Indian Penal Code? Discuss the difference between criminal rashness and criminal negligence.

Answer

Section 279 makes Rash driving or riding on a public way punishable— Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 279 deals with rashness and negligent driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way in a rash and negligent manner, as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In order to constitute an offense punishable under s 279, IPC, it must be established that:

1. the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way;
2. such driving was done in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to another person.

The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Rash and negligence must be criminal rashness or criminal negligence. It must be more than mere carelessness or error of judgment. For conviction under the section, it must be proved that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public road in a manner that endangered human life or was likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.

In Duli Chand v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1975 SC 1960] when the driver of a bus, who, although was driving at a moderate speed, failed to look to his right before turning at a cross-road and consequently ran over a cyclist, it was held that the driver was guilty of negligence.

The difference between culpable rashness and culpable negligence is this: Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope, they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening.

The imputability arises despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that illegal and mischievous results 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 civil duty of circumspection.

The distinction between the two has thus been pointed out by Lord Esher MR, in Le Neve v. Gould [[1898] 1 QB 491] The question of liability for negligence cannot arise at all until it has been established that the man, who has been negligent, owed some duty to the person who seeks to make him liable for his negligence.

A man is entitled to be negligent as he pleases toward the whole world if he owes no duty to them. If one man is near to another or is near to the property of another, a duty lies upon him not to do that which may cause a personal injury to that other or may injure his property.

For instance, if a man is driving along a road, it is his duty not to do that, which may injure another person whom he meets on the road or his horse or his carriage. In the same way, it is the duty of a man not to do that, which will injure the house of another to which he is near.

If a man is driving on Salisbury Plain and no other person is near him, he is at liberty to drive as fast or recklessly as he pleases. But if he sees another carriage coming to him, immediately a duty arises not to drive in such a way as is likely to cause an injury to that other carriage. So, too, if a man is driving along a street in a town, a similar duty-not to drive carelessly – arises out of contiguity or neighbourhood.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions