Driving at High Speed: Not Necessarily Rash or Negligent
The Delhi High Court has clarified that merely driving a vehicle at high speed does not inherently imply criminal rashness or negligence. This observation came in the case of State v Sanjay, where the Court dismissed an appeal from the Delhi government seeking to overturn the acquittal of a tempo driver accused under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha emphasized that vehicles are inherently designed for speed, and the mere fact that a vehicle is driven swiftly does not automatically categorize the driver’s actions as rash or negligent. The terms ‘high speed’ or ‘over speed’ are, after all, relative, according to the Court.
The Case: Analyzing the 2009 Incident
The case stemmed from a tragic accident that occurred on November 12, 2009. The prosecution alleged that the tempo driver was operating the vehicle in a reckless and negligent manner when it collided with a bicycle. This collision resulted in the death of a woman, whose son was riding the bicycle with her. The front wheel of the tempo allegedly ran over her head, leading to her immediate death.
Initially, a lower court acquitted the driver in August 2013. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the State appealed the decision in 2016, leading to the recent High Court ruling.
Testimonies and Judicial Findings
The deceased woman’s son, who was the prosecution’s primary witness, testified that the tempo was traveling at a very high speed and in a reckless manner. However, the High Court pointed out that he failed to substantiate how the driving was specifically rash or negligent. Notably, he could not provide an estimated speed of the tempo.
The Court noted, “The mere occurrence of a road traffic incident resulting in a fatality cannot automatically lead to an inference of rashness or negligence by the driver.” The prosecution was expected to furnish evidence detailing what constituted high speed under the circumstances. Absent such evidence, the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) could not be applied to presume rashness or negligence.
Prosecution’s Inconsistencies
Justice Sudha also highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. Although the son claimed that the impact threw him onto the road, there was no medical proof of any injuries, nor was he medically examined. Furthermore, his account of the vehicle striking from the left while he rode on the left side was contradicted by the mechanical inspection, which revealed only a slight dent on the left corner of the tempo.
Due to these inconsistencies and the lack of substantial evidence, the Court upheld the driver’s acquittal and dismissed the State’s appeal. Additional Public Prosecutor Utkarsh represented the State in this matter.
