TITLE OF PROJECT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------- Element Of Crime “Actus reus”------------------

---------------------------------------------------

Submitted by

Shashank Diwakar
-----------------------------------------

B.COM L.L.B(Hons.) 3 rd
Semester

Roll No…48

Faculty of Law

Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation

University, Lucknow

In
November, 2016

Under the guidance of

Dr. Girjesh Shukla
(Faculty Of Law)

Designation Of Guide
 Assistant Professor In Law

CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “ Element of Crime – Actus

Reus” submitted to the Faculty of Law, Dr. Shakuntala
Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow for
Law of Crimes-I, as part of Internal assessment, is
based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Dr. Grijesh Shukla Sir.

The research work has not been submitted

elsewhere for award of any degree. The material
borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the
thesis has been duly acknowledged. I understand that I
myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Date:- 4 Nov. 2016 Signature

of the candidate

Shashank Diwakar
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr. Girjesh

Shukla as well as our Head of Department Mrs. Shephali Yadav who gave me
the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic Element Of
Crime “Actus Reus”, which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and i
came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly i would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited time frame.
 Table Of Contents

Annexure-A……………………………………………….
Annexure-B………………………………………………..
Acknowledgement………………………………………...
Index Of Authorities……………………………………...
Introduction to an Actus Reus………………………………
Nature & Scope of Actus Reus……………………………...
 Place…………………………………………………..
 Time………………………………………………….
 Person…………………………………………………
 Concent………………………………………………..
 State of mind of the victim…………………………….
 Possession………………………………………………
 Prepration……………………………………………….
  Conduct…………………………………………………
 Result……………………………………………………
Omission……………………………………………………….
1. Statutory duty………………………………………..
2. Contractual duty………………………………………
3. Duty imposed by law………………………………….
 Creating a dangerous situation and failing to put it right
 Assumption of responsibility…………………………
 Misconduct in a public office…………………………
An omission can also be a part of continuing act…………….
SECTION 33 (Act includes series of acts)…………………….
The Actus Reus must be voluntry……………………………
State Of Affairs (actus reus)……………………….................
Causation………………………………………………………

CASES
1. Bishambhar vs. Roomal AIR 1951 All 500, (1952) Cr Lj 179(All).
2. Tunda vs. Rex AIR (1950) All 95.
3. R v George Pappajohn  [1980] 2 SCR 120, 52 CCC (2d) 481
4. Greener v DPP (1996)
5. R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37
6. R. vs. Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
7. R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354
8. R v Dytham [1979]QB 722
9. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1Q.B. 439
10. T.K. Goptal V State of Karnataka, AIR2000 SC1669 (1673, 1674)
11. R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411
 12.  Om Prakash v State Of Punjab (AIR 1961 SC 1782)
13. R v Quick (1973) QB 910
14. Dr. Meeru Bhatia Prasad v. State 2002 (108) CrLJ 1674 Del
15. R v Larsonneur (1933)
16. Winzar vs. Chief Constable Of Kent
March 28, 1983,
Co/1111/82 (Lexis), (Queen's Bench Divisional Court)
17. Moti Singh vs. State Of Utter Pradesh  1964 AIR 900, 1964 SCR (1) 688
18. Rewaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) Cr Lj 858 MP
19. Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State Of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829
20. Ambalal D Bhutt v. State Of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 1150

DEFINITION

Actus reus means an include all external circumstances and consequences

specified in the rule of law as constituting consequences or situation.
In other words actus reus means the whole definition of crime
with exception of mental element and it even includes a mental element in so far
as that is contained in the definition of an act.

Nature &scope
The requirements of actus reus varies depending on the definitions of the crime.
Actus reus may be with reference to place, fact, time, person, consent, the state of
mind of the victim, possession or mere preparation.

PLACE:
In the offence of criminal trespass, house breaking or in the aggravated forms
thereof, the actus reus is in respect of place (ss 441-462, IPC)
TIME:
In the offence of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to
commit offence or after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint etc (ss
456-458, IPC), the actys reus is in respect of both place and time.

PERSON:
In offence of abduction and kidnapping, procuring of a minor girl etc., the actus
reus is in the respect of person (ss359-374, IPC).

CONCENT:
In the offences like rape, consent will be consider as an actus reus.
Section 87, 88, 89 of IPC deals with various aspects of actus reus done with
concent which, but for the concent given, would amount to offences.

Bishambhar vs. Roomal AIR 1951 All 500, (1952) Cr Lj 179(All).

In this case, a complainant molested a dalit girl. About 200 people armed with
lathis were determined to punish him. At the same time the three of the locality
members enterfared and tried to bring out some settlement. They along with the
others, who were the relatives of the girl, assembled before the panchayat. The
complainant consented to submit to the decision of the panchayat. In order to
avoid other harm to the complainant, the panchayat decided to take him on the
round of the village by blackned his face and by beating with the shoes. The
decision of the panchayat having being carried out in the way that three person
who intervened with the family of that girl was prosecuted under section 323 and
503 of IPC.
The Allahabad court held that the accused were entitled to the benefit
under section 81 and 87 of IPC. It observed that in case like this when the accused
person acted bona fied, without any criminal intent in order to save the
complainant from the serious consequences resulting from his own indecent
behaviour, with his concent, obtained in writing and for his benefit, then it may
not amount to an offence.

Tunda vs. Rex AIR (1950) All 95

In this case  Tunda, aged twenty-four years, a resident of village Jaoli, district
Mathura, was sent up by the police under Section 304, Penal code for having
caused the death of one Munshi. Session judge acquitted from this charge but
convicted him under section 304A of IPC, for rashly caused the death of Munshi.
The prosecution case was that the appellant and Munshi were fond of wrestling
and on the morning of 13th May 1947, the appellant invited Munshi to the akhara
in Kanhaiya's bagicha for a wrestling bout. They wrestled there. While playing
wrestling match Munshi got injured accidently on his skull, which caused him
death.
In this case court held that no foul play could be attributed to the accused and
hence, he was not liable for any offence.

R v George Pappajohn  [1980] 2 SCR 120, 52 CCC (2d) 481

George Pappajohn put his house up for sale through a real-estate company. He
met with a female real-estate agent from the company at a bar. They had lunch
together, including drinks, over the course of approximately three hours, after
which the two went to Pappajohn's house where they engaged in sexual
intercourse. After the event the woman was seen running out the house naked,
wearing a bow-tie, with her hands bound. The agent claimed that she was raped,
however, Pappajohn claims that short of a few coy objections she had consented.
Pappajohn was convicted at trial which he appealed as the judge refused to put to
the jury whether Pappajohn should be able to claim that he mistakenly believed
that she had consented. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and was
appealed to the Supreme Court.
In this case the issue was raised was that - Is actus reus a pertinent factor in
this case ?
Appeal Dismissed by the supreme court.
 McIntyre, writing for the majority, first discussed the question of when a
defence should not be put to a jury. He held that a defence should be used when
there is "some evidence which would convey a sense of reality in the submission."
On the facts, he found that there was no evidence, other than the statement of the
accused, that if believed, would have allowed for the possibility of consent.
Accordingly, the lower court ruling was upheld.
Dickson concurred, and stated that the defence was derived from the mens
rea requirement which is an objective standard, and consequently the mistaken
belief did not need to be reasonable, it just needed to exist.

STATE OF MIND OF THE VICTIM:

In offences relating to religion (ss 295-298,IPC), or where rape is committed
when consent has been obtained by putting the victim in fear of death or of hurt
(s375, thirdly, IPC) or with any misconception , the actus reus is with reference to
the state of mind of the victim.

POSSESSION:
Some special "act" such as possession can be actus reus.
For Example, possession of drug is a serious crime in many countries around the
world. If there is cocaine in a bag and with the voluntary aspect then possession of
that bag will be consider as an actus reus ,  An act cannot satisfy the actus reus
requirement unless it is voluntary.

PREPARATION:
Sometimes preparation of any act is also said to be an actus reus. For example-
preparation to commit daocity an offence, preparation of war against state,
printing of fake currency etc.

CONDUCT:
The conduct of any act may also be an actus reus. For example- if any person
conducts of lying under oath represents the actus reus of perjury. 
It does not matter that weather lies effect the outcome of any situation/case, the
actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct.
Examples of conduct crimes:
 Perjury
 Theft
 Making off without payment 
 Rape
 Possession of drugs or a firearm’

RESULT:
Sometimes the conduct itself may not be criminal but the result of the result of the
conduct may be criminal. For example- it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it
hits a person or smashes a window it could amount to be a crime.(causation must
be there).
Examples of result crimes: 
 Assault
 Battery
 ABH
 Wounding and GBH
 Murder & Manslaughter
 Criminal damage

Omission -  The general rule regarding omissions is that there is no liability for

a failure to act. For example- if you see a child drowning in deep water and you
don't do anything to save that child you will not be liable for any criminal
liability for your inaction no matter how easy it may have been for you to save the
child's life. This general rule however, is subject to exceptions:

Greener v DPP (1996)

In this case the defendant was the owner of a yong, strong dog. He had left the
dog chained in an enclosure in his back garden.  The dog had strained and bent
the clip releasing its chain. Dog has escaped from the garden and gone to the
nearby garden where he cut a small boy on his face.
Section 3(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides that if the owner
of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not
permitted to be and while it is there it injures any person, he is guilty of an
offence.
Divisional Court held that an offence under s3(3) could be
committed by omission. The word “allows” included taking and omitting to take a
positive step.  In this case the defendant had failed to take adequate precautions.
Similar precautions had been taken in the past but they were obviously inadequate
as the fastening was not good enough and the enclosure not secure.

1. Statutory duty:
 In some situations there is a statutory duty for act. For example- to provide
details of insurance after a traffic accident or to notify driving license (DVLA)
when you sell a vehicle.
 
2. Contractual duty:
 If a person owes a contractual duty to act, then a failure to meet this contractual
duty may result in criminal liability: 

R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37
In this case the defendant was working in the railway company in which he was
employed for a gate keeper. The defendant lift up the gate to allow the cart to paas
from the railway crossing and then he forgot to pull down the gate and went for
the lunch while in that time there was another train coming collided with horse
cart which resulted to the death of train driver. Hence, in this case the defendant
(gate keeper) was liable for the death of train driver because defendant was in the
contractual duty to close the gate.

3. Duty imposed by law:

a). Creating a dangerous situation and failing to put it
right:
The actus reus can be committed by an omission where there exists a duty
imposed by law. There are three situations in which a duty may be imposed by
law. These are where “the defendant creates a dangerous situation, where there
has been a voluntary assumption of responsibility and misconduct in a public
office”. Additionally an omission may be classified as part of a continuing act.
 

R. vs. Miller [1983] 2 AC 161

Miller, after consuming "a few drinks" went back to a friend's house, lit a
cigarette and fell asleep. Upon waking and seeing that the mattress he was lying
on was on fire he got up, went into the next room and went back to sleep. When
he woke up again, the house was on fire.
Main issue which was raised in court was:
Is the actus reus of the offence of arson present when a defendant accidentally
starts a fire and thereafter, intending to destroy or damage property belonging to
another or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or
damaged, fails to take any steps to extinguish the fire or prevent damage to such
property by that fire?
Appelent court dismissed the appele, original conviction upheld.
Court gave the reasoning that the actus reus can be deemed to have
occurred, because Miller created a situation that would result in harm if he
recklessly failed to prevent the harm. As the appellant created the liability himself
it would make no sense to excuse him of criminal liability.
b) Assumption of responsibility:
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354
Ted stone was of 67 who was totally blind, partially deaf and had no
appreciable sense to smell and was of low intelligence. He lived with the
housekeeper and mistress who was of 8 years. Dobinson was of 43 who was also
described as dull and lazy type person. Stone’s sister Fanny came to live with
them. Previously she was living with her another sister but had fallen out with her.
She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia narvosia. Ted and
Gwendolyn agreed to took her in and agreed to look after her. However, Fanny’s
condition was worse and she was found dead on her bed in horrifying condition.

c). Misconduct in a public office:

R v Dytham [1979]QB 722
In this case Dytham (defendant) was a police officer. At the same time he was a
bouncer also while in that time he kicked the man who caused death.  He was
charged with the offence of misconduct in a public officer.  He argued in front of
the court that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically
requires misconduct.
Court held that, the offence of misconduct in a public offence can
be committed by an omission. The defendant's conviction was upheld.

An omission can also be a part of continuing act:

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1Q.B. 439
In this case a police man asked Fagan to park the car, hence the defendant
accidentally drove the car on policeman’s foot. Policeman streamed loudly at him
to get off, the defendant shut of the engine and refused to move car from his foot.
The defendant argued that at the time of committing the act he was having
no mens rea and the act was purly accidental. And when he formed the mens rea
in his mind he lacked the actus reus as he was neutral.
 The main issue arrised in this case was that is it necessary that actus reus
and mens rea should be committed at the same time ?
Justice James from the side of majority quoted that, “Fagan’s conduct
could not be said to be a mare omission. . At the outset there was an act
constituting a battery, but it was not criminal because there was no element of
intention. However, the action became criminal from the moment that the
intention was formed (when he refused to move and shut off the engine) which
followed directly from the continuing act. The action and intention did not have to
occur at the same time, because the action was a continuing act that overlapped
with the intention to create a crime. Therefore, as the act and intention were
present in the offence, he must be found guilty!”

T.K. Goptal V State of Karnataka, AIR2000 SC1669 (1673, 1674)

In this case court quoted that “Crime can be defined as an act that subjects the
doer to legal punishment. It may also be defined as the commission of an act
specifically forbidden bylaw; it may be an offence against morality or social
order.”

SECTION 33 (Act includes series of acts)

R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 
The defendant stabbed an 18 year old girl for four times, and punchered her lung,
when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. She was told she would
need a blood transfusion to save her life, but refused this as contrary to her
religious beliefs. She died next day.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished
responsibility and appealed arguing that the girl's refusal to accept the blood
transfusion was a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation,
alternatively that Holland was no longer good law.
 It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other
people must take their victims as they find them. This principle clearly applies to
the mental as well as the physical characteristics of the victim, and the courts will
rarely make a judgement as to whether the victim's response was reasonable.
The defendant's conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operative cause of
death.

Om Prakash v State Of Punjab (AIR 1961 SC 1782)

In this case the victim bimla devi was ill-treated, deliberately straved (hungry)
and confined inside the room for several months by her husband. One day
fortunately her room was unlocked and she escaped and somehow manage to
reach to the civil hospital, where the doctors treated her for malnutrition and
blood transfusion. The lady doctor sent a letter/note to the police station saying
“My patient Bimla Devi is actually ill, she may give up from her life at any
moment”. Bimla Devi’s statement was recorded by a magistrate in the hospital.
Challenging her convection under section 307 the accused argued :
 It is not the duty of the husband to spoon feed his wife and he was only
duty bound to provide funds and food.
 Even if Bimla Devi had been deprived of food for a certain period, the
act of so depriving her doses not come under section 307 of the IPC as
that could not, by itself, have caused her death, it being necessary for the
period of starvation to continue for a longer period to cause death.
The court held guilty upholding his convection and rejecting
his arguments the court held that in view of Bimla Devi’s confinement in
pursuance of a scheme of regularly starving her in order to accelerate her
end, the responsibility of the appellant for the condition to which she was
brought in clear. The findings really go against any suggestion that the
appellant had actually provided food and funds for his wife. Rejecting the
second argument court clarified that the word “act” does not mean only any
particular, specific, instantaneous act of a person but denotes, according to
section 33 of the IPC, as well, a series of act. The course of conduct adopted
 by the appellant in regularly starving Bimlas Devi comprised a series of acts
and therefore acts falling short of completing the series, and would therefore
come within the purview of section 307 of the code.

There are two legal maxims related to the actus reus :

1. actus me invitio non est mens actus.
2. actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

First maxim means “an act done by me against my will is not my act”
Second maxim means “an act done without any having guilty mind is not
punishable”

THE ACTUS REUS MUST BE VOLUNTARY:

R v Quick [1973]
The defendant was in charge of nurse in a hospital. He attacked one of his patient,
who was diabetic. The assault occurred whilst the defendant was in a state of
hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar level due to an excess of insulin). Patient also
consumed alcohol before the attack. The appellant was charged with assault
occasioning ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861.
In this case defendant (nurse) tried to take the diffence of automatism.
Trial court held that it is not the case of automatism and therfore held guilty.
Nurse appealed in the higher court – where the appeale was allowed and the
conviction was quashed. Court held that his hypoglycaemia was caused not by his
diabetes but by the external factor of insulin.
“In this case Quick's alleged mental condition, if it ever existed, was not
caused by his diabetes but by his use of the insulin prescribed by his doctor. Such
malfunctioning of his mind as there was, was caused by an external factor and not
by a bodily disorder in the nature of a disease which disturbed the working of his
mind. It follows in our judgment that Quick was entitled to have his defence of
automatism left to the jury and that Mr. Justice Bridge's ruling as to the effect of
the medical evidence called by him was wrong. Had the defence of automatism
been left to the jury, a number of questions of fact would have had to be
answered. If he was in a confused mental condition, was it due to a
hypoglycaemic episode or to too much alcohol? If the former, to what extent had
he brought about his condition by not following his doctor's instructions about
taking regular meals? Did he know that he was getting into a hypoglycaemic
episode? If yes, why did he not use the antidote of eating a lump of sugar as he
had been advised to do? On the evidence which was before the jury Quick might
have had difficulty in answering these questions in a manner which would have
relieved him of responsibility for his acts. We cannot say, however, with the
requisite degree of confidence, that the jury would have convicted him. It follows
that his conviction must be quashed on the ground that the verdict was
unsatisfactory.”

Case on – voluntary commission of illegal act

Dr. Meeru Bhatia Prasad v. State 2002 (108) CrLJ 1674 Del
In this case the complainant, Tarsem Kumar lodged a report with the police
alleging carelessness and negligence on the part of the accused in conducting test
on his pregnant wife to be the cause of the force abortion of her five months old
fetus. The accused was charged and tried for offences under section 313(causing
miscarriage without woman’s concent) and section 269 (Negligent act likely to
spread infection of disease dangerous to life) of IPC. The defence argument was
that the test were conducted after obtaining no-objection from the victim,
moreover the doctor never wanted to cause miscarriage and absence of good faith
for the purpose of saving the life of the pregnant woman or the child and not
otherwise.
The court held guilty, rejecting the arguments of the accused the
court observed that , even if it be assumed that the patient had consented for
amniocentesis test, she can not be assumed to have consented for insertion of a
needle which can cause septic. According to the statements of the witnesses and
documents which have been placed on records, it can be deduced that the act of
the accused is responsible for the miscarriage suffered by the complaint’s wife.
Further a bare reading of section 39 IPC, defining the term “voluntarily” shows
that person need not intend to cause a certain effect. If an act is probable
consequences of the means used by him, he is said to have caused it voluntarily
weather he really ,means to cause it or not .Thus the convection of the accused
was upheld.

“STATE OF AFFAIRS” (actus reus)

R v Larsonneur (1933)
In this case the defendant was a French resident, who got the permission to go to
the UK for the limited time period only. At the end of that period the defendant
left England, not to return to France, but to travel to the Irish Free State.  The Irish
authorities made a deportation order against her, and she was forcibly removed
from Ireland and returned to the UK. On arrival in England the defendant was
charged under the Aliens Order 1920, with “being found” in the UK whilst not
having permission to enter the country.
Defendant was convicted by the lower court.
 The defendant was convicted, and appealed on the basis that her return to
the UK had not been of her own free will, in that she had been forcibly taken to
England by the immigration authorities. The Court of Appeal dismissed her
appeal on the simple basis that the prosecution had proved the facts necessary for
a conviction.

Winzar vs. Chief Constable Of Kent

 March 28, 1983,
Co/1111/82 (Lexis), (Queen's Bench Divisional Court)
The defendant has been admitted to hospital on a stretcher. When doctor
examined him, he was found drunk and asked to leave the hospital. Later he found
in the corridor of the hospital and therefore police was called to take him off. The
police men took that man outside on the road and placed him in the police car and
took him to the police station, where he was charged for “being found drunked in
a public highway”. The defendant was convicted.
Therefore he appealed in the higher court on the ground that he had not
been on the public road of his own volition The Divisional Court upheld the
conviction holding that all that was required for liability was that the defendant
should be perceived to be drunk whilst on a public highway. There was no need
for the court to have any regard as to how he came to be there.

CAUSATION:
Causation is one of the important element of an actus reus. Causatiuon refers to
the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct (or omission) caused the harm
or damage. Causation must be established in all crimes.
Causation is necessary in actus reus for the consequence of the act. Act
must be “causa causans” that is the immediate cause of the effect.

Case on “immediate cause” :

Moti Singh vs. State Of Utter Pradesh
In this case the deaseased named Gayancharan had received two gunshots wounds
in the abdomen which are dangerous to life (ie, which were life threatening).
According to facts the act was committed on 9 February 1960. On 1 March 1960
Gayancharan was died. There was no evidence when he was discharged from
hospital, and weather he had fully recovered or not. His body was cremated with
out any post mortem being done.
In this case supreme court held that the mere fact that the two gunshots
injuries were dangerous to life were not sufficient for holding that Gayancharan’s
death, which took place after the three weeks after the incident, ewas on the
account of the injuries received by him. The court observed that in order to prove
the Gayancharan’s murder, it must be necessary to establish he died on account of
the injuries received by him .
Since there was no evidence to establish the cause the death, the
accused could not be said to have caused the death of Gayancharn.
The crusial aspect which was highlighted by the court in this case was
that the connection between the primary cause and the death should not be too
remote.

Rewaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh

In this case the accused had caused multiple injuries with a knife to his wife
Gyanvatibai. She was operated in the hospital by the doctors. Thereafter, she
developed ‘hyperpyrexia’ ie, high temperature, as a result of which she died. This
‘hyperpyrexia’ was a result of atmospheric temperature on weak, weakened
individuals, who already had some temperature. The doctor who performed the
post mortem, said that the death was not the result of multiple injuries, but
because of hyperpyrexia.
Madhya Pradesh high court observed that if the supervening causes are
attributed to the injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for
causing death, even if the death was not the direct result of the injuries. In this
case it was told by the doctor that the death was caused by the high temperature of
her debilitated condition. Gyanvatibati fell into deliberate condition because of
multiple injuries which she had sustained, the operation which she had to undergo
and the post-operative starvation, which was necessary for his recovery. Thus her
death was a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted on her. Supervening cause
was the direct result of the multiple injuries and was not independent or
unconnected with the serious injuries sustained by her. As a result, it was held that
the accused ‘had caused’ her death and therefore his conviction for murder was
upheld.
Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State Of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC
829
In this case Suleman Rahiman Mulani who was accused strucked the man while
driving his jeep, which results to the serious injuries to him. The accused put that
injured person in his jeep and took him to the hospital for his medical treatment,
but he died. Thereafter the accused cremated the body. Hence, the accused was
charged for the negligent act and for the act of disappearance of evidence of
offence under section 304A and 201 of IPC.
Arguments raised in the court of law was that the accused had
possessed only the learner’s licence, hence was guilty of causing the death of the
deceased.
Court held that there was no presumption in law that a person who
posses only a learner’s licence or possesses no licence at all, does not know
driving. A person could have various reason to not have driving licence including
sheer/tear while driving motor vehicle. There was evidence which clearly shows
that the accused know the driving well. So before the accused convicted for above
stated sections , it is necessary to prove in the court of law that that accused had
drove the car rashly and negligently. In this case there was absolutely no such
evidence hence accused was acquitted by the court.

Ambalal D Bhutt v. State Of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 1150

In this case Ambalal D Bhutt the accused was a chemist in charge of the injection
department. The company prepared a glucose with the solution of sodium
chloride. The sodium chloride sometimes contains quantities of led nitrate. The
saline solution which was supplied by this company was in very much quantity
and therefore was dangerous to human life. The bottles was purchased by many
hospitals, nursing homes etc. and were administrated to several patients to whom
twelve patients died. As per the drug act 1940and the rules made there under, a
chemist of a chemical co. has to give a batch no. to every lot of bottles containing
preparation of glucose in normal saline. The accused who was responsible for
giving the batch numbers failed to do so. He gave a single batch no. to four lots of
saline. It was the contention of the prosecution that had the appellant given
separate batch no. to each lot and the lot which contain heavy deposits of led
nitrate would habe been rejected , as the accused neglect all these rules which
results to death of several peoples.
The supreme court held that for an offence under s 304A, the mere
fact that an accused contravened certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act
which cause death of another , does not established that the death was held
because of rash and negligent. It was established in evidence that it was the
general practice prevalent in the company of giving one batch no. to different lots
manufactured in one day. The practice was in the knowledge of the drugs
inspector , who did nothing to prohibit the practice and instead turned the blank
eyes to a serious contravention of the drug rules. To hold the accused responsible
for the contravention of the rule, would be to make an attempt to somehow find
the scapegoat for the death of twelve persons. Accordingly, the conviction of the
accused under s 304A was set aside.
 Bibliography

Books Referred:-
1. Criminal Law - PSA Pillai's
2. The Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law :-
By Kevin Jon Heller; Markus D. Dubber
3. A Layperson's Guide to Criminal Law :-
By Raneta Lawson Mack
4.Basic Concepts of Criminal Law :-
By George P. Fletcher
5. Structure and Function in Criminal Law :-
By Paul H. Robinson

Sites/ Links
1. https://indiankanoon.org
2. www.e-lawresources.co.uk
3. http://casebrief.wikia.com
4. www.e-courts.in
5. http://www.ipcsection.in
6. http://sixthformlaw.info
7. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in