Bombay High Court Acquits Driver in Fatal Highway Accident Case, Citing Lack of Evidence for Rash or Negligent Driving

---

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application and quashed the convictions under Sections 304-A (causing death by negligence) and 279 (rash driving) of the IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It observed that the prosecution had failed to establish rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, which are prerequisites for conviction under these sections. Consequently, the court acquitted the revisionist and canceled his bail bonds, ordering the refund of any fine deposited.

---

Facts:

1. On September 20, 2000, a minor girl died after being hit by a Gypsy vehicle driven by the revisionist.
2. The accident occurred on a National Highway, specifically on a tarred road.
3. According to the prosecution, the vehicle was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, leading to the accident.
4. The revisionist himself reported the accident to the police.
5. The trial court convicted the revisionist based on eyewitness testimony and other evidence, which was upheld by the appellate court.

---

Issues:

1. Was the driving of the revisionist rash or negligent, and did it directly cause the victim’s death?
2. Did the prosecution provide sufficient evidence to establish rashness or negligence?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Accident Circumstances:
   • The accident occurred on the tarred portion of the highway, suggesting that the deceased girl entered the road unexpectedly.
   • Witness testimony indicated that the girl ran across the road after being called by others.
2. Defense Theory:
   • The revisionist argued that a truck moving in the opposite direction might have caused the girl to hesitate and inadvertently cross in front of his vehicle.
3. Prosecution Failures:
   • No immediate panchanama (scene sketch or spot analysis) was prepared to confirm the exact spot of the accident.
   • Lack of evidence proving excessive speed or rashness in driving.
4. Legal Errors:
   • Statements made by the revisionist to the police were inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
   • Procedural lapses affected the reliability of the evidence presented.

---

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The prosecution asserted that the revisionist was driving at an excessively high speed.
2. The girl died immediately due to the impact, which the State argued was a direct result of the revisionist’s negligent driving.
3. Both the trial court and the appellate court found sufficient evidence to convict the revisionist.

---

Analysis of the Law:

1. Section 304-A IPC:
   • This provision requires proof that the death was caused by the accused’s rash or negligent act, with a direct nexus between the act and the fatality.
   • Negligence and rashness are the key elements and must be established beyond doubt.
2. Section 279 IPC:
   • This section penalizes driving in a manner so rash or negligent that it endangers human life or is likely to cause injury.
   • The prosecution must prove:
     • Rash or negligent driving.
     • Occurrence on a public road.
     • Driving that directly endangers life or causes likely harm.
3. Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act:
   • Requires proof that the driver operated the vehicle in a manner dangerous to public safety.

The court emphasized that mere occurrence of an accident does not automatically establish negligence or rashness on the part of the driver.

---

Precedent Analysis:

• The court referred to Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. (2008) 1 SCC 791, where the Supreme Court held that rashness or negligence must be the proximate cause of death to invoke Section 304-A IPC. The burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution to establish these elements.

---

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Lack of Direct Evidence:
   • The prosecution failed to prove that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently.
   • There was no concrete evidence of the exact spot of the accident or the speed of the vehicle.
2. Witness Contradictions:
   • Key witnesses (PW2 and PW3) admitted that the girl ran onto the highway after being called and possibly hesitated due to an oncoming truck.
   • This raised doubt about whether the revisionist’s actions alone caused the accident.
3. Procedural Lapses:
   • The spot panchanama was not conducted immediately but on the following day, undermining its reliability.
   • The investigating officer failed to establish critical details, such as the position of the vehicle or the victim at the time of the accident.
4. Prosecution’s Case Probabilized the Defense:
   • The defense’s argument that the girl entered the road suddenly, possibly due to external factors (like the passing truck), was supported by inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.
5. No Evidence of Speed:
   • There was no clear indication that the vehicle was traveling at an excessive speed.
   • The absence of such evidence weakened the case for negligence.

---

Conclusion:

• The court held that the evidence presented did not establish rash or negligent driving.
• The findings of both the trial court and the appellate court were unsustainable due to the lack of concrete proof.
• The revisionist was acquitted, and the court ordered the refund of any fine amount deposited.

---

Implications:

1. The judgment highlights the need for thorough and immediate documentation in road accident cases to establish liability.
2. It reinforces the principle that negligence or rashness cannot be presumed and must be proven with credible evidence.
3. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for the prosecution to ensure procedural and evidentiary rigor in cases of alleged negligent driving.

This detailed explanation encompasses all aspects of the judgment and its reasoning. Let me know if you need further clarification!

Also Read – Patna High Court Denies Relief for Delay in Challenging GST Registration Cancellation: “The Law Favours the Diligent, Not the Indolent,” Upholds Strict Adherence to Statutory Timelines in Taxation Matters