Fatal Accident by Itself Cannot Establish Criminal Negligence, Court Holds
New Delhi Sep 4 : The Delhi High Court has held that merely driving a vehicle at high speed does not, by itself, establish criminal rashness or negligence, observing that “high speed” and “over speed” are relative terms that must be assessed in the circumstances of each case.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Delhi government against the acquittal of a tempo driver who had been accused under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with a fatal road accident in 2009.
The Court noted that the prosecution is required to establish through evidence how and in what manner the accused drove the vehicle rashly or negligently. Merely establishing that the vehicle was travelling at a high speed would not be sufficient to attract criminal liability.
The High Court observed that the expressions “high speed” and “over speed” are relative concepts, and the prosecution must demonstrate that the manner of driving amounted to rashness or negligence under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
While examining the evidence, the Court found that the sole eyewitness had failed to explain how the tempo driver’s manner of driving was rash or negligent. The witness was also unable to provide even an estimate of the speed at which the vehicle was travelling.
The Court accordingly held that the occurrence of a fatal road accident, by itself, cannot give rise to an automatic presumption of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
Since the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond the required standard, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal recorded in favour of the tempo driver.
Key Takeaway
The ruling reiterates that criminal liability for rash and negligent driving cannot be based solely on the fact that an accident occurred or that a vehicle was allegedly travelling at high speed. The prosecution must produce credible evidence demonstrating the specific act or manner of driving that constituted rashness or negligence.
The Delhi High Court therefore upheld the acquittal of the accused tempo driver and dismissed the government’s appeal.(KNC)
