Delhi High Court Rules High-Speed Driving Alone Not ‘Rash and Negligent’
The Delhi High Court has ruled that high-speed driving does not automatically imply “rash and negligent” behavior, while acquitting a man convicted of killing two pedestrians in a 2012 road accident.
The ruling came as the court overturned an 18-month jail sentence awarded in 2022 to the petitioner, who worked as a car cleaner and had taken the vehicle for a drive before losing control. The accident led to the deaths of two pedestrians.
Justice Banerjee, presiding over the case, examined witness statements which indicated that the accused was driving at high speed. However, none of the testimonies could conclusively establish that the driving was reckless or negligent. The petitioner had claimed that a sudden tyre burst led to the accident.
“The court does not find any evidence on record that reflects that the petitioner was indeed driving the car in a ‘rash and negligent’ manner,” the judge noted while allowing the appeal.
The court also criticized the prosecution for its failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that critical circumstantial aspects, such as the condition of the vehicle, the exact circumstances of the accident, and whether there was indeed a tyre burst, had not been adequately examined during the trial.
ALSO READ | Supreme Court Judges Including CJI Khanna To Publicly Declare Their Assets Amid Cash Row
The high court clarified that for a conviction under rash and negligent driving charges, the prosecution must prove that the act causing death or injury was due to reckless or careless behavior. Mere high-speed driving, in itself, does not meet this legal threshold.
“The prosecution failed to address crucial aspects such as the time of the accident, the road conditions, and the mechanical state of the vehicle at the time,” the judge remarked.
Legal experts believe this ruling sets an important precedent regarding traffic-related offenses. The judgment underscores the need for thorough investigations and evidence beyond just speed in cases involving road accidents.
This verdict may also influence how similar cases are adjudicated in the future, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive approach in determining liability in vehicular accidents.
