{"id":377561,"date":"2026-03-07T09:00:43","date_gmt":"2026-03-07T03:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=377561"},"modified":"2026-03-10T10:11:25","modified_gmt":"2026-03-10T04:41:25","slug":"del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/","title":{"rendered":"High speed not \u2018sine qua non\u2019 to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; Del HC grants leave to appeal against acquittal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Disclaimer:<\/span> This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, to give an accurate report to our readers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a petition seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 279<\/a>, Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC) arising from a fatal road accident, the Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J.<\/span>, held that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate evidence relating to rash and negligent driving. Observing that the absence of excessive speed does not negate criminal negligence, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed transfer of the accused’s pending appeal against conviction under Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> so that both matters could be heard together.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The prosecution alleged that on 20 November 2016, the respondent was driving a truck on a public road in a rash and negligent manner when he struck a motorcycle from behind, resulting in the death of the rider. FIR No. 497\/2016 was registered at Police S tation Sunlight Colony.<\/p>\n

By judgment dated 12 February 2018, the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the offence under Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a> (rash driving on a public way) but convicted him under Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> for causing death by negligence.<\/p>\n

The State sought leave to appeal, contending that the acquittal under Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a> was legally inconsistent with the finding of guilt under Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> and resulted from an erroneous appreciation of evidence.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h3>\n

1. Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a>?<\/p>\n

2. Whether the absence of excessive speed alone can negate rash or negligent driving?<\/p>\n

3. Whether a conviction under Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> could coexist with an acquittal under Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a> on the same factual matrix?<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

At the outset, the Court reiterated the settled principles governing the grant of leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC). The Court relied upon State of Maharashtra<\/span> v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar<\/span>, (2008) 9 SCC 475<\/a>, wherein it observed that at the stage of considering leave, the High Court is not required to determine whether acquittal would ultimately be reversed but must examine whether a prima facie case or arguable issue warranting appellate scrutiny exists.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the trial court had acquitted the respondent under Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a> primarily on the ground that the speed of the vehicle, stated by eyewitnesses to be approximately 40-60 kmph, could not be considered excessive. However, the same court simultaneously concluded that the respondent had caused death by rash and negligent driving, thereby convicting him under Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court held that both provisions share a common element, that is, the commission of a rash or negligent act. The Court referred to State of Arunachal Pradesh<\/span> v. Ramchandra Rabidas<\/span> (2019) 10 SCC 75<\/a>, and reiterated that Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a> criminalises rash or negligent driving that endangers human life, while Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> applies where such negligence results in death without intention or knowledge amounting to culpable homicide. The Court referred to Alister Anthony Pareira<\/span> v. State of Maharashtra<\/span>, (2012) 2 SCC 648, and<\/a> noted that essential ingredients of Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a>, includes the death of a human being caused by a rash or negligent act.<\/p>\n

The Court further relied upon Braham Dass<\/span> v. State of H.P.<\/span>, (2009) 7 SCC 353<\/a>, to emphasise that both Sections 279<\/a> and 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> are premised on proof of rashness or negligence, and the determining factor is endangerment of life rather than mere speed of the vehicle.<\/p>\n

Applying these precedents and principles, the Court observed that the Magistrate had placed disproportionate emphasis on the speed of the truck while disregarding other material evidence. Testimonies of eyewitnesses indicating that the truck was being driven in a zig-zag manner were not adequately evaluated.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that high speed is not a sine qua non for establishing rash driving; negligent operation of a heavy vehicle, particularly when allegedly overloaded and driven erratically on a public way, may itself constitute endangerment within the meaning of Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court held that once the trial court accepted that the respondent’s driving resulted in death through negligence, it was sufficient to attract Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> and as the result the acquittal under Section 279<\/a> IPC<\/a> would have required closer appellate scrutiny. The Court observed that, prima facie, rashness and negligence could not be negated merely because the vehicle was not travelling at excessive speed.<\/p>\n

The Court also took note that the respondent’s appeal challenging the conviction under Section 304-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> was pending before the Sessions Court. The Court observed that both matters arose from the same judgment and involved overlapping questions of rashness and negligence. Therefore, it invoked its transfer jurisdiction under Section 447<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS) (corresponding to Section 407<\/a> CrPC<\/a>) and directed transfer of the pending appeal to the High Court so that both appeals could be heard together in the interests of justice.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the Court concluded that substantial and arguable grounds existed warranting appellate examination and that the State had successfully established a case for the grant of leave.<\/p>\n

[State v. Sabu, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 804<\/a>, decided on 20-2-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the petitioner:<\/span> Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with Divya Yadav, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Nitya Jain, Advocate<\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Possibility of rashness and negligence by a driver cannot be negated on the mere account of low speed, especially when it is alleged that the respondent was driving a heavy vehicle, carrying material over the permissible weight limit, in a zig-zag manner prior to the accident.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":377570,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[4561,35018,68448,6711,32994,100056,7202,46451,34929,100057],"class_list":["post-377561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-acquittal","tag-appellate-jurisdiction","tag-bnss","tag-criminal-law","tag-leave-to-appeal","tag-motor-accident-liability","tag-rash-and-negligent-driving","tag-section-279-ipc","tag-section-304-a-ipc","tag-transfer-of-criminal-appeal"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC: High speed not 'sine qua non' to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court grants leave to appeal against the acquittal for rash driving, holding that the absence of excessive speed alone cannot negate negligence under Section 279 IPC where the accused stands convicted under Section 304-A IPC for a fatal accident.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"High speed not \u2018sine qua non\u2019 to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; Del HC grants leave to appeal against acquittal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court grants leave to appeal against the acquittal for rash driving, holding that the absence of excessive speed alone cannot negate negligence under Section 279 IPC where the accused stands convicted under Section 304-A IPC for a fatal accident.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-03-07T03:30:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-10T04:41:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"High speed not \u2018sine qua non\u2019 to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; Del HC grants leave to appeal against acquittal\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC: High speed not 'sine qua non' to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-03-07T03:30:43+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-10T04:41:25+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court grants leave to appeal against the acquittal for rash driving, holding that the absence of excessive speed alone cannot negate negligence under Section 279 IPC where the accused stands convicted under Section 304-A IPC for a fatal accident.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 279 IPC\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"High speed not \u2018sine qua non\u2019 to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; Del HC grants leave to appeal against acquittal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC: High speed not 'sine qua non' to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC","description":"Delhi High Court grants leave to appeal against the acquittal for rash driving, holding that the absence of excessive speed alone cannot negate negligence under Section 279 IPC where the accused stands convicted under Section 304-A IPC for a fatal accident.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"High speed not \u2018sine qua non\u2019 to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; Del HC grants leave to appeal against acquittal","og_description":"Delhi High Court grants leave to appeal against the acquittal for rash driving, holding that the absence of excessive speed alone cannot negate negligence under Section 279 IPC where the accused stands convicted under Section 304-A IPC for a fatal accident.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-03-07T03:30:43+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-10T04:41:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"High speed not \u2018sine qua non\u2019 to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; Del HC grants leave to appeal against acquittal","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/","name":"Del HC: High speed not 'sine qua non' to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.webp","datePublished":"2026-03-07T03:30:43+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-10T04:41:25+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Delhi High Court grants leave to appeal against the acquittal for rash driving, holding that the absence of excessive speed alone cannot negate negligence under Section 279 IPC where the accused stands convicted under Section 304-A IPC for a fatal accident.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 279 IPC"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/07\/del-hc-high-speed-not-sine-qua-non-to-constitute-offence-under-section-279-ipc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"High speed not \u2018sine qua non\u2019 to constitute offence under Section 279 IPC; Del HC grants leave to appeal against acquittal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Section-279-IPC.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":52911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/06\/23\/compromise-betwen-parties-in-case-of-death-by-rash-and-negligent-driving-is-not-a-ground-to-quash-the-offence-us-304-a-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":377561,"position":0},"title":"Compromise between parties in case of death by rash and negligent driving is not a ground to quash the offence u\/S 304-A IPC","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 23, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court:\u00a0 Dismissing the criminal miscellaneous case where the petitioner having been\u00a0 charged under Sections 304-A, 279 and 338 of the Penal Code, 1860 for causing death due to rash and negligent driving, sought quashing of the proceedings on the basis of a compromise entered into by the parties,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":288849,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/08\/sc-set-aside-reduction-of-sentence-in-rash-and-negligent-driving-case-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":377561,"position":1},"title":"Supreme Court sets aside Punjab and Haryana HC’s reduction of sentence in rash and negligent driving case","author":"Ridhi","date":"April 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that the High Court did not properly consider the instant case of rash and negligent driving, and that the principle aim and object of IPC is to punish offenders.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rash and negligent driving","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1052.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1052.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1052.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-1052.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250857,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/06\/sending-accused-to-jail-26-years-after-the-incident-of-rash-driving-harsh-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":377561,"position":2},"title":"Sending accused to jail 26 years after the incident of rash driving, harsh: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a case dating back to the year 1995 where a bus driver had caused an accident, thereby injuring a driver of a car, the 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, Vineet Saran and MR Shah, JJ has upheld the conviction of the bus driver under Sections 279 and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":261240,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/07\/conviction-sentence-not-to-affect-career-and-not-be-treated-as-a-remark-for-employment\/","url_meta":{"origin":377561,"position":3},"title":"Conviction sentence not to affect career and not be treated as a remark for employment; Kar HC confined the sentence to fine only in accordance with Ss. 279 and 337 IPC","author":"Editor","date":"February 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J., disposed of the petition and modified the judgment of the appellate court. The facts of the case are such the petitioner was driving KSRTC bus and thereby caused an accident by dashing against a private bus due to rash and negligent driving. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":219451,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/12\/del-hc-ambiguity-in-evidence-as-to-locations-of-accident-is-material-where-accused-is-alleged-to-ride-motor-vehicle-in-rash-and-negligent-manner\/","url_meta":{"origin":377561,"position":4},"title":"Del HC | Ambiguity in evidence as to locations of accident is material where accused is alleged to ride motor vehicle in rash and negligent manner","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 12, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J. dismissed a criminal petition filed by the State against the order of the trial court whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way)\u00a0read with Section 304-A\u00a0(causing death by negligence)\u00a0of the Penal Code. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":260232,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/18\/is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved-supreme-court-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":377561,"position":5},"title":"Is dismissal from service per se an unfair labour practice for being disproportionate to the misconduct proved? Supreme Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"January 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that punishment of dismissal from service per se cannot be said to be an unfair labour practice for being disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Background On\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/377561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=377561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/377561\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/377570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=377561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=377561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=377561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}