Merely driving the vehicle at ‘fast speed’ by itself may not tantamount to ‘rashness’ & ‘negligence’: Delhi HC acquits man in alleged hit-and-run case
Justice Vikas Mahajan [28-05-2024]

Read Order: RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA v. THE STATE  [CRL.REV.P. 988/2019]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 30, 2024: The Delhi High Court has set aside the finding of the accused-petitioner’s guilt and his consequent conviction under Section 304A IPC as the prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by the petitioner by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

The incident is of the year 2004 when information was received at Chanakyapuri Police Station that a man was lying at Malcha Marg stand in a bloodstained condition and that he had met with an accident. A daily diary entry was registered. On inquiry it was found that the PCR had already taken the injured to the hospital.

At the hospital, the MLC of the injured was collected, and as per MLC the injured was declared to be brought dead. The Constable disclosed that he was patrolling in the night when he saw the pedestrian / deceased crossing the road. One Fiat car driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the pedestrian due to which he fell on the other side and the driver ran away after seeing the accident, but he followed the car. The driver / petitioner was apprehended and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

The revision petition was filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking setting aside of the judgment passed by the Court of ASJ whereby his conviction under Section 279/304A IPC for a period of three months and under Section 304A IPC, for a period of one year was upheld.

The court took judicial notice of the fact that in the month of June in Delhi, by 8.15 PM it is invariably dark. It was also the case of prosecution that the deceased was crossing Sardar Patel Marg, which is a two-way road as per the testimony of the IO. The site plan also showed that Sardar Patel Marg is a two-way road with a divider in between. Even in the site plan, no zebra crossing or traffic intersection had been indicated, rather the said site plan indicated that the deceased was crossing the road at a point other than zebra crossing and no traffic signal has been shown near the spot of accident, in the site plan. “If the deceased was crossing Sardar Patel Marg at a point other than zebra crossing during the time when it was dark and the traffic was flowing freely in the absence of any red-light signal, no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner”, the Bench said.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan noted that none of the eye witnesses had given description about the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven so as to bring the act within the purview of Section 304A IPC. Intriguingly, no skid marks and tyre marks were obtained to corroborate that the petitioner was driving at high speed and in rash and negligent manner.

Referring to the judgment in Karnataka v. Satish, [LQ/SC/1996/576] &Kishore Chand Joshi v. State, [LQ/DelHC/2018/2635], the Bench said, “It is trite law that the expression “fast speed” or “high speed” is a relative term and merely driving the vehicle at “fast speed” by itself may not tantamount to “rashness” and “negligence”.

Thus, considering the evidence on record, the Bench opined that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by the petitioner by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, so to sustain the finding of petitioner’s guilt and his consequent conviction under Section 304A IPC.

Thus, allowing the criminal revision, the petitioner set aside the judgment of ASJ, and acquitted the petitioner of charges punishable under Section 279/304A IPC.