Does not amount to culpable homicide nor murder, says HC

Just because a driver was ferrying an overload of passengers in his vehicle does not mean his intention was to kill them and thus such a driver cannot be held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court ruled recently. The HC accordingly acquitted a pick up van driver of the charge, however, maintained the charges of rash driving and negligence.

A single-judge bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi in her significant ruling, also held that speed is not the only criteria for concluding the driver was rash driving.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by a driver of a pick-up van, which was ferrying more than 30 passengers. The van had met with an accident with a truck in which at least eight persons died. The driver had challenged the orders of the trial court, which let off the truck driver but convicted him.

The trial court in its order noted that the van driver was ferrying passengers more than the capacity of the vehicle.

Trashing the theory, Justice Kankanwadi said, “Merely because the driver had exceeded the limit of the passengers’ capacity in the pick-up van, it can not be said that he had the intention or even knowledge that his act would cause death of any passenger. To that extent the finding given by the trial court is erroneous.”

“It was very much unfortunate that eight persons lost their lives and 23 were injured in the accident, but, taking into consideration the evidence on record, wherein only one witness says that the driver was overtaking and almost none of the eye witness has stated how the accident took place,” Justice Kankanwadi said while dropping charges of culpable homicide against the driver.

The bench further noted the trial court had held the driver guilty only after relying on the statements of some witnesses, who claimed the speed of the vehicle was high.

“No doubt, high speed of a vehicle is not the only criteria on which the rashness and negligence would depend. In order to arrive at the conclusion that the accident has taken place because of rashness and / or of negligence, the prosecution has to prove the surrounding circumstances at the spot,” Justice Kankanwadi said.

The judge further explained that in the present case, none of the witnesses have stated what was the approximate width of the road, what

was the condition of road, where exactly or even approximately their vehicle was proceeding i.e. either on the left side, middle or right side of the road.

“All these are the important criteria to arrive at the conclusion regarding rashness and / or the negligence on part of a driver,” Justice Kankanwadi ruled.

The court accordingly dropped the charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but however, maintained the driver’s conviction under the provisions of rash driving and negligence.