Rash or Negligent Meaning of
Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
Enforcement of laws is as important as their enactment, especially where such laws deal with safety
and security of citizens and create continuing obligations that call for constant vigil by those
entrusted with their administration. Callous indifference and apathy, extraneous influence or
considerations and the cynical Chalta Hai attitude more often than not costs the society dearly in
man-made tragedies whether in the form of fire incidents, collapse of buildings and bridges,
poisonous gas leaks or the like. Short-lived media attention followed by investigations that at times
leave the end result flawed and a long winding criminal trial in which the witnesses predecease their
depositions or switch sides under pressure or for gain and where even the victims or their families
lose interest brings the sad saga to an uncertain end. A somewhat similar story is presented in these
appeals by special leave arising out of a common judgment and order dated 19th December, 2008
passed by a Single Judge of High Court of Delhi whereby a batch of criminal appeals filed by those
convicted by the trial Court for commission of different offences and the sentences awarded to them
were disposed of alongwith criminal revision petition no.17 of 2008 filed by the Association of
Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (hereinafter, AVUT) that led to the death of 59 persons besides injuries
to nearly 100 others
...
(1) The Trial Court held that the management of the cinema had disregarded the requirements of
law and the sanctioned plan, thereby putting the lives of the patrons at risk. The Court found that
there was nothing on record to show that the Ansal brothers (A-1 and A-2) or the Managers of the
cinema for that matter had impressed upon the contractor appointed by them the legal and safety
requirements of maintaining a safe distance between vehicles and the transformer room when they
entered into a parking contract in the year 1988. This, according to the Court, was gross negligence
that contributed to the death of a large number of patrons and injuries to many more. T
....
(j) That the owners of Uphaar Cinema who carried out the structural deviations, the officers of the
MCD who granted 'No Objection certificates for running the cinema hall for the years 1995-96 and
1996-97 respectively despite the structural deviations existing in the cinema building and the
managers of Uphaar Cinema who turned a blind eye to the said deviations and the threat to public
safety caused by them, were the direct cause of death of 59 persons and 100 injured in the cinema
hall. The act of the gatekeeper in fleeing from the cinema hall without unbolting the door of balcony
was also found to be a direct cause of the death of persons inside the balcony
.....
xiii) The managers being directly responsible for the daily functioning of the cinema failed in their
duty to ensure the safety of the patrons seated inside. They grossly neglected their duties to take
measures to prevent fires and follow fire safety regulations, which caused the death of patrons
trapped inside.
xiv) It is writ large that the failure of the owners and management of Uphaar Cinema to adhere to
provisions relating to fire safety caused the death/injury of those who had gone to view the film in
the cinema
....
37. The High Court on the above findings upheld the conviction of Sushil Ansal (A-1) and Gopal
Ansal (A-2). It also upheld the conviction of H.S. Panwar (A-15) for offences punishable under
Sections 304A, 337 and 338 read with Section 36 of the IPC but reduced the sentence awarded to
them under Section 304A to one year rigorous imprisonment without interfering with the fine
imposed by the Trial Court. The High Court also reduced the sentence awarded to the
aforementioned three appellants under Section 337 to three months rigorous imprisonment and
under Section 338 to one year rigorous imprisonment with the direction that the sentences shall run
concurrently including the sentence awarded to Ansal brothers (A-1 and A-2) under Section 14 of the
Cinematograph Act for which too the said two accused persons were convicted.
.....
43. Since this question has several facets to it, we propose to deal with the same under the following
sub-headings to ensure clarity and avoid any possible confusion or repetition:
i) Scope of a criminal appeal by special leave
ii) Rash or Negligent Meaning of
iii) What constitutes negligence?
iv) Difference between Negligence in civil actions and that in criminal cases.
v) The doctrine of causa causans.
vi) Whether Ansal brothers were occupiers of Uphaar Cinema building?
vii) Degree and nature of care expected of an occupier of a cinema building.
viii) Whether the accused were negligent and if so, whether the negligence was gross?
ix) Contentions urged in defence and the findings thereon.
......
ii) Rash or Negligent Meaning of:
47. Section 304A of the IPC makes any act causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to
culpable homicide, punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years or with fine or with both. It reads:
304A. Causing death by negligence.-- Whoever causes the death of any person by
doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.
48. The terms rash or negligent appearing in Section 304A extracted above have not been defined
in the Code. Judicial pronouncements have all the same given a meaning which has been long
accepted as the true purport of the two expressions appearing in the provisions. One of the earliest
of these pronouncements was in Empress of India v. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776, where Straight J.
explained that in the case of a rash act, the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with
recklessness or indifference as to consequences. A similar meaning was given to the term rash by
the High Court of Madras in In Re: Nidamarti Negaghushanam 7 Mad HCR 119, where the Court
held that culpable rashness meant acting with the consciousness that a mischievous and illegal
consequence may follow, but hoping that it will not. Culpability in the case of rashness arises out of
the person concerned acting despite the consciousness. These meanings given to the expression
rash, have broadly met the approval of this Court also as is evident from a conspectus of decisions
delivered from time to time, to which we shall presently advert. But before we do so, we may refer to
the following passage from A Textbook of Jurisprudence by George Whitecross Paton reliance
whereupon was placed by Mr. Jethmalani in support of his submission. Rashness according to
Paton means where the actor foresees possible consequences, but foolishly thinks they will not
occur as a result of his act.
49. In the case of negligence the Courts have favoured a meaning which implies a gross and
culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard
against injury either to the public generally or to an individual which having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have
adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable
man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs,
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 28
would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike
rashness, where the imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies
acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised
the caution incumbent upon him. The imputability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect
of the civil duty of circumspection.