Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Understanding the section
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the act of reckless or careless driving/riding on public roads. The law is aware of the fact that careless handling of vehicles poses a risk of injury to human life. A person shall be guilty of this section, if he drives or rides a vehicle in a public path, in a way that is rash or negligent, and is likely to cause hurt, injury, or to endanger a human life. The section applies to all vehicles, whether a car, bicycle, or even a horse and cart, as long as the conduct is on a public way.
Essential Ingredients
- Driving or Riding a Vehicle: The accused must be in control over, either driving or riding, a vehicle.
- Public Way: The conduct must occur on a road or place which is allowed to be used by the public.
- Rash or Negligent Activities: The riding or driving must be so careless or reckless that it risks life or injury is likely to occur.
- Endangerment or Risk of Hurt: The activities must either cause harm, or create a real risk of hurt or injury to any person.
Punishment
The offender can face:
- Imprisonment for up to 6 months, or
- A fine up to ₹1,000, or
- Both imprisonment and fine.
The penalty shows the law is preventive, and concerned with public safety, not just punishment of the act. Even if there is no injury, reckless behaviour on a pubic road is punishable.
Illustration
Illustration: If A is driving his car fairly fast through the city street with pedestrians, recklessly overtakes a vehicle that is also driving on the same road, causing pedestrians to run for safety, A has committed an offence under section 279.
Case Laws
- State v. Shyam (1977): The court found that driving without due care and attention, which constitutes a risk to pedestrians, is rash driving regardless of whether an injury occurred.
- Suresh v. State of Maharashtra (2001): The court ruled that negligence alone could support a conviction under section 279, without need for anything more to prove intent to injure.
- Ram Kishan v. State (2003): The Supreme Court held that to prove the offence, endangerment to human life is sufficient, without any requirement to show actual injury or harm.