Merely Because An Accident Took Place Is Not Ipso Facto A Ground To Attribute Negligent Driving In Absence Of Evidence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed merely because an accident took place, is not ipso facto a ground to attribute negligence to the driver in the absence of any such evidence.

The Criminal Appeal was filed by the Prosecution against the order of acquittal of the trial court in a rash/negligent driving case.

The Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “In so far as the Car being driven by the Respondent is not disputed, but the testimony of the Complainant has not been able to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car by the Respondent. It has been rightly observed by the learned M.M. that merely because an accident took place, is not ipso facto a ground to attribute negligence to the Respondent in the absence of any such evidence.”

Case Brief

It was the contention of the Prosecution that the Complainant was coming back on his Cycle on the Peeragarhi Flyover, when he was hit by the car driven by accused in a rash and negligent manner, because of which he fell and suffered grievous injuries and the accused subsequently fled from the spot.

The Complainant gave his written Complaint after two days of incident, on which FIR under Section 279/338 Indian Penal Code and Section 146/196 Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act) was registered.

While it was the contention of the accused that she was not rash or negligent in driving the car. It was the Complainant who had hit her car from behind. It was further stated that the Complainant sat in front of her car and started demanding money. The accused gave Rs.3,500/- to the injured and left the spot.

It was observed by the trial court that Prosecution had not been able to prove rashness and negligent on behalf of the accused and thereby acquitted her under Section 279/338 IPC, but on the admission that there was no Insurance Policy of the vehicle, convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 146/196 of the MV Act.

Court’s Analysis

The Court considered two aspects, firstly, the Complainant filed the complaint after two days of the accident. Secondly, the manner of the accident.

In regard to delay in filing the complaint, the explained by the Complainant that since no action was taken by the Police, he himself went to the Police Station and got his complaint registered.

The Court observed, “The Seizure Memo which shows that it is the front vehicle which had got twisted, was not possible if the Cycle was hit from behind. Such damage is inconsistent with a rear-end collision, where one would expect greater damage to the rear wheel. The nature of damage to the Cycle therefore, creates a doubt about the manner in which the accident has occurred and lends some credence to the defence taken by the Respondent.”

Thus, the Court held that the accused has been rightly acquitted under Section 279/338 IPC.

Accordingly, the Appeal was disposed of.

Cause Title: State of NCT Delhi V. Mamta Sehgal (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5091)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Utkarsh for State with I.O SI Chetan

Respondents: Advocate Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Ashish Upadhyay for Respondent No. 2.

Click here to read/download Judgment.