Merely Because Vehicle Was At High Speed Would Not Mean Driver Was Rash Or Negligent By Itself: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal U/S 279 & 304A IPC
|The Court upheld an acquittal in a fatal road accident case, finding sole eyewitness account contradicted by mechanical inspection report.
The Delhi High Court has held that a witness's assertion that a vehicle was being driven at "very high speed" does not, by itself, establish the rashness or negligence necessary to sustain a conviction under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. The Court observed that "high speed" and "over speed" are relative terms, and it is for the prosecution to place material on record demonstrating what constitutes high speed in the facts of a given case.
Dismissing the State's appeal against acquittal, the Court found that the sole eyewitness's version of how the accident occurred was directly contradicted by the mechanical inspection report, which recorded damage to the opposite side of the offending vehicle from what the witness's account would suggest, thereby undermining the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed, “…Vehicles are intended to be driven in speed. Merely because the vehicle was driven at high speed would not mean that the driver was rash or negligent by itself. 'High speed' or 'over speed' are relative terms. It is for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by 'high speed' in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the offences alleged against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of 'rashness' or 'negligence' can be drawn by invoking the maxim ‘res ipsa loquitur’”.
“…Mere occurrence of a road traffic incident, which results in a fatality, cannot ipso facto lead to an inference of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver...”, the Bench had also noted in the judgment.
Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the appellant while the respondent appeared in person.
On November 12, 2009, the complainant was riding a bicycle with his mother as a pillion rider when a tempo, allegedly driven rashly and at high speed by the respondent, struck the bicycle. The complainant's mother fell onto the road and was run over by the tempo's front wheel, resulting in her death at the spot. A chargesheet was filed against the respondent for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Delhi, acquitted the accused by judgment dated August 26, 2013, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to establish rash or negligent driving. The State preferred an appeal under Section 378 CrPC. When the appeal came up for hearing, counsel for the respondent remained absent on successive occasions; the Court, invoking the Supreme Court's ruling in Bani Singh v. State of U.P., proceeded to decide the appeal on merits based on the record.
The Court observed that the witness's claim of being thrown onto the road without sustaining any injury "appears highly unlikely". Critically, the Court found that the mechanical inspection report showing damage to the tempo's left side was inconsistent with the witness's version of impact. The site plan was also found deficient, having been prepared without a scale and without indication of the road's width, and the witness himself admitted it was not prepared in his presence.
Consequentially, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the trial court's judgment of acquittal was upheld. Pending applications, if any, were closed.
Cause Title: State v. Sanjay (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7267)
Appearances:
Appellant: Utkarsh, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Respondent: appeared in person.