High speed does not necessarily mean rash & negligent driving: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: Driving a vehicle at high speed does not necessarily mean rash and negligent driving, Delhi high court ruled while acquitting a petitioner, reports Abhinav Garg.
The HC ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by a car cleaner, who had taken someone else's vehicle out for a spin, but lost control and fatally hit two pedestrians in 2012. The petitioner man, who claimed there was a sudden tyre burst that led to the accident, was handed an 18-month jail term in 2022.
Allowing the appeal filed by the man, Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that merely because the petitioner was driving at a "high speed", one cannot conclude he was "rash and negligent".
Justice Banerjee had examined the testimonies of witnesses who all said the car was being driven at a high speed, but could offer no further details on whether it was being driven rashly.
The judge pointed out that there were lacunae in the case set up by prosecution.
Possibility of a flat tyre not considered, says HC
While acquitting the petitioner, Justice Banerjee of Delhi high court ruled: "Prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was indeed driving the car in a 'rash and negligent' manner, which resulted in the demise of the two pedestrians."
The judge further observed that several circumstantial aspects, such as the time of the accident, the condition of the vehicle, and whether there was indeed a flat tyre had "neither been addressed by prosecution nor taken into consideration" by the trial courts.
The court explained that to sustain any punishment or conviction, it is a pre-requisite that the act that leads to death or is likely to cause injury must be "rash" and "negligent".
Going through the statements of four witnesses, the high court said though all of them deposed that the petitioner was driving the car at a "high speed", "however, neither of them" deposed he was driving in a "rash and negligent" manner.
"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.