Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K acquitted the accused, holding that rashness and negligence could not be established due to the deceased’s contributory inebriation and the accused driving on the correct side, making the incident unforeseeable. 

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the matter of Harish v. State of Karnataka (2025).

What was the Background of Harish v. State of Karnataka,2025 Case? 

• On 14th April, 2018, complainant Manohara D.U. and deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar were returning to Bangalore from Mysore on a two-wheeler motorcycle. 
• As they approached Ullala Bridge at Nice Road, they parked their motorbike on the extreme left side of the road so that one of them could attend to nature's call. 
• While the pillion rider was away attending to nature's call, the deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar remained seated on the parked motorbike. 
• At that time, petitioner Harish, who was driving a car, allegedly crashed his vehicle into the deceased's motorbike. 
• The deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar sustained grievous bleeding injuries from the collision and was immediately admitted to Victoria Hospital for medical treatment. 
• Despite medical intervention, B.T. Dilip Kumar succumbed to his injuries on the same day at the hospital. 
• The prosecution filed charges against Harish under Sections 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 304(A) (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The prosecution examined five witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused, with the complainant serving as the primary eyewitness to the incident. 
• The trial court convicted Harish based on the evidence presented and sentenced him to two months of simple imprisonment for the offences. 
• The appellate court subsequently confirmed the conviction, prompting Harish to file a revision petition before the Karnataka High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that "rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, as they significantly depend on facts and circumstances of each case." 
• Applying the 'Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity' as established in Donoghue v. Stevenson, the Court noted that "rashness innately implies recklessness coupled with a state of conscious breach of duty to care where there exists a necessity of care." 
• The Court found that the complainant, despite being the alleged eyewitness, failed to locate the precise place of incident to police and was not present during the drawing of spot mahazar, creating doubt about his credibility as a witness. 
• The post-mortem report revealed that the deceased's stomach contents "smelt pungent with strong traces of alcohol," indicating that the deceased was inebriated and under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. 
• The Court determined that the prosecution failed to produce cogent evidence to substantiate that the accused drove rashly and negligently, noting that mere assertions of "high speed" without specific details were insufficient to establish the offence. 
• Considering that the accused was driving on the correct side of the road and the deceased appeared suddenly while intoxicated, the Court concluded that the degree of negligence could not be ascertained, leading to the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 

What is Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) ? 

• Section 106 of the BNS 2023, India's new criminal code that replaced the Indian Penal Code. This section deals with "Causing death by negligence" and contains two main provisions: 
• Subsection (1) - General negligence causing death: 
  • Covers death caused by rash or negligent acts that don't amount to culpable homicide. 
  • General punishment: Up to 5 years imprisonment (simple or rigorous) plus fine. 
  • Special provision for medical practitioners: Reduced punishment of up to 2 years imprisonment plus fine when death occurs during medical procedures. 
  • Defines "registered medical practitioner" as someone qualified under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and registered in the National or State Medical Register.
• Subsection (2) - Hit-and-run cases: 
  • Specifically addresses death caused by rash and negligent vehicle driving. 
  • Enhanced punishment of up to 10 years imprisonment plus fine when the driver escapes without reporting to police or magistrate. 
  • This represents a significant increase from previous penalties to address the serious issue of hit-and-run accidents.