Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Rash and Negligent Driving Case: “Prosecution Failed to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt That the Accused Was Driving the Vehicle”

Court’s Decision:

The High Court overturned the judgments of the lower courts, which had sentenced the accused to three and six months of rigorous imprisonment for rash and negligent driving and causing death by negligence. Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the prosecution had not adequately proven that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, stating:

“The fact that the applicant was driving the car has not been investigated at all…prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.”

Facts:

1. Incident: On March 17, 2018, a cyclist was struck by an i20 car near Jai Ganesh Samrajya Chowk in Pune. The cyclist sustained severe injuries and succumbed to them three days later.
2. Accused’s Presence: The accused was one of the passengers in the car, hired from A.S. Just Rides Tours and Travels.
3. Police Action: The police filed an FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, later adding the Motor Vehicles Act sections. The accused was arrested and subsequently released on bail.

Issues:

1. Was the accused driving the car at the time of the accident?
2. Did the accused’s actions constitute rash and negligent driving, causing the accident?
3. Was there contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. No Evidence of Driving: The accused argued that he was not driving the car; it was driven by a hired driver, who fled after the accident.
2. Contradictions in Testimonies: There were inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and the prosecution’s case, particularly with the deposition of the primary witness, PW-3.
3. Car’s Condition: The car had minimal damage, as confirmed by the RTO report, and was fitted with a speed governor, which limited its speed.
4. Delay in FIR: The three-day delay in filing the FIR was unexplained, raising questions about the credibility of the case.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Driver Identification: The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and rental records, claiming the accused hired the car and was responsible for the accident.
2. Eyewitness Account: PW-3, the deceased’s nephew, claimed he saw the accused driving the car that struck the bicycle.
3. Admissions: The car rental company confirmed that the car was hired by the accused, and the prosecution argued that this implied he was the driver.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Requirements for Conviction:
   • Section 279 IPC: Requires proof of rash or negligent driving that endangers life.
   • Section 304-A IPC: Requires proof that the accused caused death by rash and negligent driving.
2. Burden of Proof:
   • The prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
   • The lack of concrete evidence about who was driving undermined the case.
3. Contributory Negligence:
   • The High Court emphasized contributory negligence, considering the cyclist’s actions and the road conditions.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to Prem Lal Anand v. Narendra Kumar:

• This case discussed contributory negligence, stating courts could apportion blame based on factual circumstances.
• The judgment highlighted that negligence must be clearly established and cannot be presumed.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Eyewitness Testimony (PW-3):
   • PW-3 claimed he was an eyewitness but admitted he was riding beside the deceased at the time. This made his testimony contradictory and unreliable.
   • PW-3 did not lodge the complaint immediately, further weakening his credibility.
2. Co-passenger’s Testimony (PW-5):
   • PW-5 categorically stated that the accused was not driving the car. She testified that a hired driver fled the scene after the accident.
   • Her account went unchallenged in cross-examination, lending it significant credibility.
3. Investigating Officer’s Role:
   • The court criticized the Investigating Officer for failing to determine who was driving the car and for not verifying the car rental company’s records.
   • The RTO report showed no significant damage to the car and confirmed it was equipped with a speed governor, making high-speed driving improbable.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The judgment stated: “Prosecution has not proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused was driving rashly or negligently.”

The conviction was quashed, and the accused was acquitted. The bail bond was canceled, and the accused was discharged.

Implications:

1. Prosecution Standards:
   • The case underscores the need for thorough investigations and robust evidence to support convictions in criminal cases.
2. Contributory Negligence:
   • Courts must assess the actions of all parties involved in accidents, not just the accused.
3. Protection of Accused:
   • The judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when evidence is inconclusive.

Also Read – Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder by Burning Case: Sets Aside Patna High Court’s Cryptic Order, Emphasizes Judicial Caution and Principles for Heinous Offenses