Skip to content


Fiduhusen Abdulali Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Appln. No. 502 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1962Guj318
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 337 and 427
AppellantFiduhusen Abdulali
RespondentThe State
Appellant Advocate K.N. Mankad, Adv.
Respondent Advocate B.R. Sompura, Asst. Govt. Pleader
DispositionRevision partly allowed
Excerpt:
- orderv.b. raju, j. 1. the applicant was convicted under sections 337 and 427, indian penal-code, for having rashly and negligently driven his lorry on a narrow culvert and having caused hurt to a person sitting in a jeep and also for having caused damage to the jeep car.2. the finding of both the courts below is that the applicant was driving his lorry at a great speed and that he ignored the signal of the jeep, although the culvert was a narrow one and although two vehicles could not pass at the same tijne. the finding of rashness and negligence is, therefore, one of fact, which cannot be interfered with in revision. it is, however, -contended that section 337 could not be applicable, because hurt was not knowingly caused and that a person sitting in the jeep happened to fall and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

V.B. Raju, J.

1. The applicant was convicted under Sections 337 and 427, Indian Penal-Code, for having rashly and negligently driven his lorry on a narrow culvert and having caused hurt to a person sitting in a jeep and also for having caused damage to the jeep car.

2. The finding of both the Courts below is that the applicant was driving his lorry at a great speed and that he ignored the signal of the jeep, although the culvert was a narrow one and although two vehicles could not pass at the same tijne. The finding of rashness and negligence is, therefore, one of fact, which cannot be interfered with in revision. It is, however, -contended that Section 337 could not be applicable, because hurt was not knowingly caused and that a person sitting in the jeep happened to fall and happened to receive a small abrasion as a result of the collision between the two vehicles. The word 'voluntarily' is not used in Section 337, Indian Penal Code. Collision was due to rashness and negligence of the applicant and hurt was caused as a result of the collision. The conviction under Section 337, Indian Penal Code, is, therefore, quite proper.

3. But as regards the conviction under Section 427, Indian Penal Code, the conviction is notproper, because a person is said to commit mischief under Section 425, Indian Penal Code, if heintends to cause or knows that he is likely tocause wrongful loss or damage to the public or toany person etc. The requisite mens rea of intention or knowledge is absent in this case. The,conviction of the applicant under Section 427, In-dian Penal Code and the sentence of fine of Rs. 200/- imposed under that section are, therefore,set aside. This fine, if paid, should be refunded.The conviction of the applicant under Section 337,Indian Penal Code and the sentence of fine ofRs. 100/- in default one month's simple imprisonment imposed under that section are confirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //