304A IPC | No Presumption of Rash Driving Merely Because of Accident: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Child Death Case

“Prosecution must establish rashness or negligence – mere occurrence of accident does not suffice” –  In a significant ruling addressing the limits of criminal liability in motor accident cases, the Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of a school bus driver who was accused of causing the death of a 3-year-old child by rash and negligent driving.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while upholding the acquittal judgment dated 30.05.2017, observed:

“There can be no presumption of rashness or negligence merely because an unfortunate accident has occurred. The prosecution must establish culpable rashness or negligence through cogent evidence. In the present case, it has failed to do so.”

"Eye-witness account of mother inconsistent with physical evidence; child's death unfortunate but not result of proven rashness"

The incident occurred on 23 January 2006, when the respondent, Sanjay Kumar, was driving a school bus (DL1V5202). The deceased child, Aditya, aged 3 years, was playing in front of his house. His sister, PW-9 Diksha Solanki, had just deboarded the same school bus. It was alleged that the bus, while moving forward after dropping students, hit the child, causing fatal injuries. The child was declared dead at the hospital.

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including PW-2 (mother of the deceased) and PW-9 (sister of the deceased), both of whom claimed to be eye-witnesses. However, the Trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of the mother, holding that from the physical location of her house, and based on the site plan, she could not have witnessed the accident from where she claimed to be standing.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna agreed with this conclusion:

“The mother’s version is inconsistent with the physical facts. The site plan shows that from the stairs or balcony, she could not have had a direct line of sight to the spot of the accident.”

On the other hand, the testimony of PW-9 (sister of the deceased) was found to be corroborated by the site plan. She stated that the bus hit her brother after moving forward about 20–25 feet from the point where she had deboarded. However, the Court held that her testimony only established the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the bus, but did not prove rashness or negligence on the part of the driver.

"Bus had barely moved 20-25 feet after stopping; no evidence of rashness" – Court examines standard of proof under Sections 279/304A IPC

The Court reiterated that under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, rash or negligent driving must be affirmatively proven. A mere accident, even if it results in death, does not automatically establish criminal culpability.

Justice Bansal Krishna observed:

“The bus had stopped to drop a passenger and had barely moved ahead when the accident occurred. In such circumstances, the inference of high speed or rash driving cannot be drawn.”

She further noted that the child was playing on the road near a T-point, and the bus was on the left side of the road, as shown in the site plan (Ex.PW-12/M). There were no independent witnesses, and no expert opinion was presented to establish excessive speed or breach of traffic rules.

"Identity of driver established beyond doubt, but culpability not proven"

While the defence claimed that the respondent was not driving the bus on the date of the accident, the Court rejected this plea, holding that the evidence under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the reply from the school’s transport caretaker (PW-5) and the absence of any cross-examination, proved beyond doubt that the respondent was indeed the driver at the time.

“There is overwhelming evidence to establish that it was the respondent who was driving the offending bus. His identity is conclusively proved.”

However, the Court emphasised that identification alone is not sufficient to secure conviction under Sections 279/304A IPC unless culpable rashness or negligence is also established.

“Tragic loss of life does not alter the standard of criminal liability” – Benefit of doubt rightly granted

Justice Bansal Krishna expressed deep sympathy for the tragic loss of a young child’s life, but reiterated the principle that criminal culpability requires proof beyond reasonable doubt:

“It is unfortunate that a 3-year-old child lost his life. However, criminal liability cannot be presumed merely because of the outcome. The legal requirement is to prove the elements of the offence, including rashness or negligence, which has not been done.”

The Court noted that the Trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence, and its acquittal was based on sound legal reasoning. Therefore, the High Court found no ground to interfere under Section 378(1) CrPC.

Acquittal Upheld, Appeal Dismissed

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent Sanjay Kumar under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was upheld.

The decision once again highlights the high threshold required for conviction in motor accident cases, and reinforces the principle that rash or negligent driving must be independently proven and cannot be presumed merely due to the occurrence of an accident.

Date of Decision: 13 January 2026