High speed alone can't establish rash driving: Why K'taka HC acquitted man in road accident case

The Karnataka High Court has acceptable speech the condemnation of a antheral for offences nether Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that specified allegation of “high speed” cannot by itself found rash oregon negligent driving successful the lack of cogent evidence.Allowing a transgression revision petition, Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the prosecution failed to found the indispensable ingredients of rash and negligent driving required to prolong condemnation for causing decease by negligence.Background of the CaseThe lawsuit arose from a roadworthy mishap that occurred connected 14.04.2018 adjacent Ullala Bridge connected NICE Road.According to the prosecution, the complainant (PW-1) and the deceased B.T.

Dilip Kumar were returning to Bengaluru from Mysuru connected a motorcycle aft distributing housewarming invitation cards.At astir 3:55 PM, they allegedly stopped their motorcycle connected the utmost near broadside of the roadworthy to be nature’s call. While PW-1 stepped away, the deceased remained seated connected the motorcycle. At that moment, a Maruti Suzuki Celerio car allegedly driven by the accused collided with the rear information of the motorcycle, causing the deceased to beryllium thrown disconnected the vehicle.

Due to this, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Victoria Hospital, wherever helium aboriginal succumbed to the injuries.A ailment was subsequently lodged by PW-1 earlier Tavarekere Police Station, starring to registration of an FIR nether Sections 279 and 304A IPAfter investigation, a complaint expanse was filed against the accused.During proceedings earlier the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses and relied connected documentary grounds including the complaint, FIR and post-mortem report.The proceedings tribunal recovered the accused blameworthy of rash and negligent driving and convicted him nether Sections 279 and 304A IPC.Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to:

The accused challenged the condemnation earlier the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, but the appellate tribunal dismissed the entreaty and affirmed the conviction. The accused thereafter approached the High Court done a transgression revision petition.Arguments Before the High CourtThe petitioner argued that some the proceedings tribunal and the appellate tribunal had failed to decently admit the grounds connected record. It was argued that PW-1, the complainant and alleged eyewitness, was not really contiguous astatine the country of the accident.During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that:

Based connected these admissions, the defence argued that PW-1’s beingness astatine the country was doubtful and that helium appeared to beryllium a planted witness.

It was besides submitted that the prosecution failed to found that the accused was driving the conveyance successful a rash oregon negligent manner, which is an indispensable constituent for offences nether Sections 279 and 304A IPC.State’s SubmissionsOpposing the revision petition, the State argued that the proceedings tribunal and the appellate tribunal had cautiously examined the grounds earlier signaling conviction. The prosecution submitted that PW-1 was an eyewitness and that his testimony, on with aesculapian grounds and different witnesser statements, intelligibly established that the mishap occurred owed to the accused’s rash driving.The State further argued that the post-mortem study confirmed that the deceased died owed to injuries sustained successful the roadworthy accident.High Court’s AnalysisAfter examining the grounds connected record, the High Court noted that the information of the mishap and the decease of the unfortunate was not disputed. The post-mortem study indicated that the decease occurred owed to caput wounded and fractures sustained successful the accident. However, the important question was whether the accused unsocial was liable for the mishap owed to rash and negligent driving.The Court observed that the prosecution relied chiefly connected the grounds of PW-1, who was projected arsenic the sole eyewitness. However, respective aspects of his grounds created superior doubts astir his beingness astatine the spot.Justice Rajesh Rai K observed that PW-1 admitted helium went to the infirmary aft receiving a telephone from the accused, who had himself taken the injured unfortunate for treatment.The Court noted that PW-1 was besides not contiguous during the mentation of the spot mahazar and had signed the papers astatine the constabulary station.In these circumstances, the Court held that small evidentiary worth could beryllium attached to his grounds arsenic an eyewitness.The Court observed:“In specified circumstances, overmuch credence cannot beryllium attached to the grounds of PW-1 though an alleged eyewitness to the incidental arsenic per the prosecution.”The Court further noted that nary different eyewitnesses had been examined by the prosecution.The accused besides took the defence that the deceased was nether the power of intoxicant and had ridden the motorcycle successful a haphazard mode instantly earlier the accident.The High Court observed that the post-mortem study indicated the beingness of beardown traces of intoxicant successful the tummy contents of the deceased.In airy of this aesculapian evidence, the Court held that the defence mentation could not beryllium ruled retired and appeared reasonably probable.The Court besides examined the prosecution’s allegation that the accused was driving the car astatine precocious speed. However, the Court observed that nary grounds was placed connected grounds to found what “high speed” meant successful the discourse of the accident.Referring to the Supreme Court determination successful State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493, the Court reiterated:“Merely due to the fact that the motortruck was being driven astatine a ‘high speed’ does not bespeak of either ‘negligence’ oregon ‘rashness’ by itself.”The Court emphasised that successful transgression trials, the load of proving rash oregon negligent driving lies wholly connected the prosecution.The High Court besides explained the ineligible conception of negligence and rashness.

The Court observed that negligence involves a breach of work of care, portion rashness implies reckless behaviour coupled with conscious disregard of duty.Justice Rajesh Rai K noted that the determination of rashness and negligence depends heavy connected the facts and circumstances of each case.The Court further observed that determination of negligence indispensable beryllium assessed successful airy of the “principle of foreseeability and proximity”, referring to Lord Atkin’s formulation successful Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932 AC 562). The Court noted that liability for negligence arises wherever a idiosyncratic fails to workout the level of attraction that a prudent idiosyncratic would follow successful akin circumstances.

In the contiguous case, since the accused was driving connected the close broadside of the road, it could not beryllium reasonably anticipated that the deceased would abruptly look earlier the vehicle.The Court besides examined the spot sketch placed connected record, which indicated that the mishap had occurred connected the near broadside of the roadworthy and the car was recovered positioned successful the close absorption of travel. This condition further weakened the prosecution’s assertion that the accused was driving rashly oregon negligently.Applying these principles, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to nutrient cogent grounds showing rash oregon negligent driving by the accused.Court’s DecisionThe High Court concluded that some the proceedings tribunal and the appellate tribunal had erred successful convicting the accused without capable grounds establishing rash and negligent driving.Accordingly, the Court allowed the transgression revision petition and acceptable speech the judgments of the courts below.The Court ordered:“The judgement of condemnation dated 29 July 2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, and the appellate judgement dated 30 January 2021 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge were acceptable aside”The petitioner was acquitted of offences nether Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and the good amount, if already deposited, was directed to beryllium refunded.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1004 OF 2021 - Harish vs State of Karnataka (Vatsal Chandra is simply a Delhi-based Advocate practicing earlier the courts of Delhi NCR.)