Delhi HC Upholds Acquittal in Rash Driving Case; Says Prosecution Failed to Prove Negligence Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal challenging the acquittal of Bhagwan Dass in a 1999 road accident case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. The Court observed inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, lack of corroborative evidence, and the absence of mechanical proof of negligence.

Background:

The appeal arose from the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, which acquitted Bhagwan Dass of charges under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for allegedly causing the death of a cyclist, Surjeet Singh, by rash and negligent driving of a tanker truck (DL-1G-9597) in 1999. The prosecution alleged that the respondent struck the cyclist on Rohtak Road, Paschim Vihar, resulting in his death before reaching the hospital. The Trial Court found gaps in the prosecution’s case and extended the benefit of doubt, leading to acquittal. The State appealed under Section 378(1) CrPC.

Court’s Opinion/Analyses:

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld the acquittal, reiterating that for conviction under Section 304A IPC, the prosecution must prove that the act causing death was performed in a rash or negligent manner. The Court found:

1. Eyewitness inconsistencies: PW-5 was not an actual eyewitness, and PW-6 gave contradictory statements regarding his position during the incident.
2. Lack of corroborative evidence: The mechanical inspection of the tanker revealed no fresh damage; the cycle was not examined; no site photographs were produced.
3. No proof of rashness: Mere mention of “high speed” is insufficient without contextual proof of visibility, road condition, or traffic density (as per State of Karnataka v. Satish, 1998).
4. Double presumption of innocence: Referring to Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022) and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020), the Court emphasized the principle that appellate interference with acquittal should be rare.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and declined to interfere with the acquittal.

Legal Provisions Concerned:

1. Section 279, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Rash driving on a public way
2. Section 304A, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Causing death by negligence
3. Section 378(1), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Appeal in case of acquittal

Case Title: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Bhagwan Dass

Case No.: CRL.A. 1173/2016

Judgment Reserved On: 06.10.2025

Pronounced On: 08.10.2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri