E-Paper
High-speed driving may not necessarily be ‘rash and negligent': Delhi high court
The Delhi high court made the observation while acquitting a petitioner who was accused of killing two pedestrians in 2012
The Delhi high court on Friday ruled that a case of high-speed driving does not necessarily mean that the driver was “rash and negligent", while acquitting the petitioner who was accused of killing two pedestrians in 2012, reported The Times of India.
The petitioner, the car's cleaner, moved an appeal in the Delhi high court against an 18-month jail term awarded to him in 2022. He took out the vehicle for a ride, but lost control and fatally knocked down two pedestrians, the report said.
In his appeal, the man claimed that he lost control due to a “sudden tyre burst". Justice Banerjee examined witness testimonies which claimed that the accused was driving the car at high speed, but could not point out whether it was driven rashly.
The report said the high court examined the statements of all four witnesses. While all of them claimed that the accused drove the car at high speed, none of them could establish that the man displayed “rash or negligent” behaviour.
While allowing the man's appeal, the judge observed that a mere case of high-speed driving could not be used to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was driving “rash and negligent.”
The judge also blamed the prosecution for the lacunae in the case and said it was not able to “prove beyond reasonable doubt” that the man driving in a “rash and negligent” manner which killed two pedestrians.
The court also observed that the prosecution neither addressed nor considered circumstantial aspects of the case like time of the accident, the condition of the vehicle and whether there was indeed a flat tyre as claimed by the petitioner.
The judge explained that to attract a punishment or a conviction the accused's act that causes a death or injury should be because of “rash” or “negligent” behaviour.
“This court, thus, does not find any evidence on record that reflects that the petitioner was indeed driving the car in a 'rash and negligent' manner,” it noted.
