Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, Justice D. M. Vyas, Gujarat High Court
Mere Driving Vehicle At A High Speed By Itself Cannot Be Construed As An Act Of Rash Or Negligent Driving: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal Of Auto-Rickshaw Driver
|The Court said the collision was the result of negligent parking of a tractor-trolley on a highway at night without signals or lighting, and not the fault of the driver of the auto-rickshaw.
The Gujarat High Court reiterated that mere driving the vehicle in a high speed by itself cannot be construed as an act of rash or negligent driving.
dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of an auto-rickshaw driver who was charged with rash and negligent driving after an auto-rickshaw he was driving collided with a stationary tractor-trolley, resulting in two deaths. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent driving, and the accident was in fact caused by the presence of an unlit, parked vehicle on the road at night.
A Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D.M. Vyas observed, “It is settled law that mere driving the vehicle in a high speed by itself cannot be construed as an act of rash or negligent driving. In order to hold a person liable for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the fact that he has driven the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner is to be invariably established with legal evidence.”
Additional Public Prosecutor Bhargav Pandya appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Tushar L Sheth represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent was driving an auto-rickshaw carrying seven labourers home from work at night. While travelling along a narrow highway, the rickshaw collided with a tractor-trolley that had been parked on the road without any lights, signals, or reflectors. As a result, the rickshaw overturned, injuring the passengers. Two of them succumbed to their injuries.
Based on the statement of one of the injured passengers, an FIR was registered. The Respondent was prosecuted under Sections 279, 304, 304A and 337 of the IPC, as well as Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Sessions Court acquitted the Respondent after trial, holding that the accident had occurred due to the negligent parking of the tractor-trolley. Aggrieved, the State filed an appeal under Section 378 CrPC against the acquittal.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the Appellant failed to establish that the Respondent had driven the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, and that key eyewitnesses, including four passengers of the rickshaw, did not state that the driver had acted negligently.
The Court observed, “PW-3 to PW-6 are the passengers who were travelling in the said auto-rickshaw. They did not say in specific terms in their evidence that the driver has driven the auto-rickshaw in a rash or negligent manner. They only stated that he has driven the vehicle in high speed and dashed the stationed vehicle on the road.”
The Court clarified that high speed alone cannot be the basis for a conviction under Sections 304 or 304A IPC. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998), the Bench observed, “It is settled law that mere driving the vehicle in a high speed by itself cannot be construed as an act of rash or negligent driving. In order to hold a person liable for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the fact that he has driven the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner is to be invariably established with legal evidence. There is no evidence on record forthcoming from the testimony of any of the witnesses examined in the case that the accused has driven the auto-rickshaw in a rash or negligent manner and thereby dashed the said tractor-cum- trolley.”
The Bench further noted that the parked vehicle was the true cause of the accident, stating, “…the accident occurred on account of parking the stationed vehicle which is a huge vehicle, a tractor-cum-trolley negligently on the highway road during night time without any parking lights or signals or indicators and in the said circumstances, no act of rash or negligent driving can be attributed to the accused in the instant case.”
The Court further rejected the Appellant’s argument that the rickshaw was driven hands-free, noting, “Absolutely there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to prove that the accused has driven the vehicle hands free.”
Holding that no ingredients of rashness or criminal negligence had been established, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s view as being reasonable and based on evidence. “The facts of the case do not constitute any offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the very framing of charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly misconceived… The trial court, after appreciating of the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused. We do not find any patent illegality or manifest error of law in the impugned judgment of acquittal so as to interfere with the said judgment of acquittal”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: State of Gujarat v. Bhikhubhai Kanabhai Miyatra (R/Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2013)