Skip to content


PulIn Behary Nandi Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in115Ind.Cas.96
AppellantPulIn Behary Nandi
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 338 - rash driving--motor lorry injuring boy while crossing road--driver's liability. - .....of the two lower courts and considering the evidence that has been adduced in the case, that it is difficult to say that the case against the accused has fairly been brought within the requirements of that section. it was found that the speed was moderate. it was also found that the petitioner was driving on the correct side of the road. there is also indication that this boy was trying to cross the road and that his sister failed to stop him; that he came in contact with the front portion of the lorry and was run over. it would be mere conjecture to say that the accused when called upon to stop could have swerved the lorry and saved the little boy from injury but that he did not do so. in all these circumstances, we think that the conviction should be set aside and the accused.....
Judgment:

1. The accused in this case was convicted of an offence under Section 333, Indian Penal Code. The facts shortly are that he was driving a motorlorry belonging to the Corporation through the Entally Middle Road from west to east when a little boy apparently in crossing the road came in contact with the lorry and his left foot was run over and fractured and had to be amputated. The section under which the petitioner has been convicted requires an act to be done so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others. It appears to us, on reading the judgments of the two lower Courts and considering the evidence that has been adduced in the case, that it is difficult to say that the case against the accused has fairly been brought within the requirements of that section. It was found that the speed was moderate. It was also found that the petitioner was driving on the correct side of the road. There is also indication that this boy was trying to cross the road and that his sister failed to stop him; that he came in contact with the front portion of the lorry and was run over. It would be mere conjecture to say that the accused when called upon to stop could have swerved the lorry and saved the little boy from injury but that he did not do so. In all these circumstances, we think that the conviction should be set aside and the accused acquitted. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. Let the petitioner's bail bond be cancelled.


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