High speed alone cannot establish rash driving: Why Karnataka High Court acquitted man in fatal road accident case

The accused also took the defence that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and had ridden the motorcycle in a haphazard manner. (AI image)

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction of a man for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that mere allegation of “high speed” cannot by itself establish rash or negligent driving in the absence of cogent evidence.Allowing a criminal revision petition, Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of rash and negligent driving required to sustain conviction for causing death by negligence.Background of the CaseThe case arose from a road accident that occurred on 14.04.2018 near Ullala Bridge on NICE Road.According to the prosecution, the complainant (PW-1) and the deceased B.T. Dilip Kumar were returning to Bengaluru from Mysuru on a motorcycle after distributing housewarming invitation cards.At around 3:55 PM, they allegedly stopped their motorcycle on the extreme left side of the road to attend nature’s call. While PW-1 stepped away, the deceased remained seated on the motorcycle. At that moment, a Maruti Suzuki Celerio car allegedly driven by the accused collided with the rear portion of the motorcycle, causing the deceased to be thrown off the vehicle. Due to this, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Victoria Hospital, where he later succumbed to the injuries.A complaint was subsequently lodged by PW-1 before Tavarekere Police Station, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 279 and 304A IPAfter investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused.During trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, the prosecution examined five witnesses and relied on documentary evidence including the complaint, FIR and post-mortem report.The trial court found the accused guilty of rash and negligent driving and convicted him under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.Accordingly, the accused was sentenced to:

The accused challenged the conviction before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The accused thereafter approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition.Arguments Before the High CourtThe petitioner argued that both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record. It was argued that PW-1, the complainant and alleged eyewitness, was not actually present at the scene of the accident.During cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that:

Based on these admissions, the defence argued that PW-1’s presence at the scene was doubtful and that he appeared to be a planted witness. It was also submitted that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, which is an essential ingredient for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.State’s SubmissionsOpposing the revision petition, the State argued that the trial court and the appellate court had carefully examined the evidence before recording conviction. The prosecution submitted that PW-1 was an eyewitness and that his testimony, along with medical evidence and other witness statements, clearly established that the accident occurred due to the accused’s rash driving.The State further argued that the post-mortem report confirmed that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the road accident.High Court’s AnalysisAfter examining the evidence on record, the High Court noted that the fact of the accident and the death of the victim was not disputed. The post-mortem report indicated that the death occurred due to head injury and fractures sustained in the accident. However, the crucial question was whether the accused alone was responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving.The Court observed that the prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of PW-1, who was projected as the sole eyewitness. However, several aspects of his testimony created serious doubts about his presence at the spot.Justice Rajesh Rai K observed that PW-1 admitted he went to the hospital after receiving a call from the accused, who had himself taken the injured victim for treatment.The Court noted that PW-1 was also not present during the preparation of the spot mahazar and had signed the document at the police station.In these circumstances, the Court held that little evidentiary value could be attached to his testimony as an eyewitness.The Court observed:“In such circumstances, much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of PW-1 though an alleged eyewitness to the incident as per the prosecution.”The Court further noted that no other eyewitnesses had been examined by the prosecution.The accused also took the defence that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and had ridden the motorcycle in a haphazard manner immediately before the accident.The High Court observed that the post-mortem report indicated the presence of strong traces of alcohol in the stomach contents of the deceased.In light of this medical evidence, the Court held that the defence version could not be ruled out and appeared reasonably probable.The Court also examined the prosecution’s allegation that the accused was driving the car at high speed. However, the Court observed that no evidence was placed on record to establish what “high speed” meant in the context of the accident.Referring to the Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493, the Court reiterated:“Merely because the truck was being driven at a ‘high speed’ does not bespeak of either ‘negligence’ or ‘rashness’ by itself.”The Court emphasised that in criminal trials, the burden of proving rash or negligent driving lies entirely on the prosecution.The High Court also explained the legal concept of negligence and rashness. The Court observed that negligence involves a breach of duty of care, while rashness implies reckless conduct coupled with conscious disregard of duty.Justice Rajesh Rai K noted that the determination of rashness and negligence depends heavily on the facts and circumstances of each case.The Court further observed that determination of negligence must be assessed in light of the “principle of foreseeability and proximity”, referring to Lord Atkin’s formulation in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932 AC 562). The Court noted that liability for negligence arises where a person fails to exercise the level of care that a prudent person would adopt in similar circumstances. In the present case, since the accused was driving on the correct side of the road, it could not be reasonably anticipated that the deceased would suddenly appear before the vehicle.The Court also examined the spot sketch placed on record, which indicated that the accident had occurred on the left side of the road and the car was found positioned in the correct direction of travel. This circumstance further weakened the prosecution’s claim that the accused was driving rashly or negligently.Applying these principles, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to produce cogent evidence showing rash or negligent driving by the accused.Court’s DecisionThe High Court concluded that both the trial court and the appellate court had erred in convicting the accused without sufficient evidence establishing rash and negligent driving.Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the judgments of the courts below.The Court ordered:“The judgment of conviction dated 29 July 2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, and the appellate judgment dated 30 January 2021 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge were set aside”The petitioner was acquitted of offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and the fine amount, if already deposited, was directed to be refunded.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1004 OF 2021 – Harish vs State of Karnataka (Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)