Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
Pulin Behary Nandi vs Emperor on 20 January, 1928
Equivalent citations: 115 Ind Cas 96
Bench: Chotzner, Gregory


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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.236 seconds.