Vehicles are intended to be driven fast and the fact that a vehicle was moving at high speed does not, by itself, establish criminal rashness or negligence on the part of the driver, the Delhi High Court recently observed [State v Sanjay]..Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha made the observation while dismissing the Delhi government’s appeal against the acquittal of a tempo driver booked under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing a woman’s death in a road accident in 2009.“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,” the Court said. .Merely because the vehicle was driven at high speed would not mean that the driver was rash or negligent by itself.Delhi High Court .The case arose from an accident on November 12, 2009. The prosecution alleged that the accused was driving a tempo rashly and negligently when it struck a bicycle carrying a man and his mother near Naresh Park Extension in Delhi. The tempo’s front wheel allegedly ran over the woman’s head, killing her on the spot.A magistrate acquitted the driver in August 2013. The State challenged the decision before the High Court in 2016.The deceased woman’s son, who was riding the bicycle, was the prosecution’s sole witness. He testified that the tempo was being driven at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner..However, the High Court found that he did not explain how the driving was rash or negligent. He was also unable to give even an approximate estimate of the tempo’s speed. “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 Court said.The prosecution was required to produce material explaining what constituted high speed in the circumstances of the case, the Court added. In the absence of such material, rashness or negligence could not be presumed by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur..The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. Although the son claimed that the impact threw him onto the road, there was no evidence that he suffered any abrasion or contusion. He was also not medically examined.Further, the witness claimed that the oncoming tempo struck his bicycle while he was riding on the left side of the road. The mechanical inspection, however, showed a slight dent on the tempo’s left corner. The Court said the impact would ordinarily have damaged the vehicle’s right side if the accident had occurred in the manner alleged..Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish rashness or negligence, the Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal..Additional Public Prosecutor Utkarsh represented the State..[Read Judgment]
