High Speed Alone Doesn't Prove Rashness:  Karnataka High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Causing Fatal Road Accident

“Prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt… Mere speed is not a substitute for evidence” — In a significant reaffirmation of criminal jurisprudence on motor vehicle accident cases, the Karnataka High Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of causing death by rash and negligent driving. Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the prosecution had failed to prove rashness or negligence, and the conviction under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC was therefore unsustainable.

The petitioner, Harish, had been convicted by the Trial Court in 2019 and the conviction was upheld by the First Appellate Court in 2021. However, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, found critical evidentiary gaps and contradictions in the prosecution’s case, warranting acquittal.

“Unreliable Witness Cannot Be the Sole Basis of Conviction” — Eyewitness Testimony Disbelieved

The prosecution’s case rested solely on the testimony of PW-1, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the accident in which the deceased, Dilip Kumar, died after being hit by the petitioner’s car. However, the Court noted grave inconsistencies in his deposition.

“PW-1 admitted that he went to the hospital only after receiving a call from the accused and that the accused himself admitted the injured to the hospital,” the Court observed [Para 13].

Moreover, PW-1 failed to point out the exact spot of the accident, signed the mahazar at the police station (not on-site), and was not present when the spot sketch was prepared. The Court thus held:

“Much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of PW-1, though an alleged eyewitness… he is a chance witness to the prosecution who appeared out of thin air and later disappeared after adducing evidence.” [Para 13]

The Court emphasized that no other eyewitnesses supported the prosecution's version, and the credibility of PW-1 stood thoroughly impeached.

“High Speed Is Not Rashness” — Court Cites Supreme Court Precedent

Justice Rajesh Rai K relied on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in State of Karnataka v. Satish, (1998) 8 SCC 493, where it was held:

“Merely because the vehicle was being driven at a ‘high speed’ does not bespeak of either ‘negligence’ or ‘rashness’ by itself.” [Quoted at Para 17]

The Court reiterated that speed is a relative term, and it is incumbent upon the prosecution to produce material evidence — such as speed estimation, skid marks, or eyewitness specifics — to prove reckless or dangerous driving. No such evidence was produced in this case.

“Foreseeability and Proximity Absent” — Contributory Negligence by Deceased Considered

The Court further scrutinized the causation aspect and invoked the classic tort law principle from Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932 AC 562):

“Negligence must be understood as a breach of duty that a prudent person would not commit, and liability must follow only where the outcome was foreseeable and proximate.” [Para 18]

It was found that the postmortem report (Ex.P9) revealed strong traces of alcohol in the deceased’s system. Thus, the Court found the defence plausible — that the deceased might have stumbled onto the road under influence, making it unforeseeable for the accused to anticipate or prevent the accident.

“The accused was driving in the correct direction; he could not have foreseen a drunk man emerging suddenly into his path. The principle of foreseeability cannot be stretched to such improbable extremes.” [Para 19]

“Prosecution Failed to Discharge Burden of Proof” — Conviction Quashed, Fine Ordered to be Refunded

The Court summarized its conclusion by stating:

“The prosecution failed to place cogent evidence to substantiate that the accused drove the car rash and negligently leading to the accident.” [Para 16]

Accordingly, the Court allowed the revision petition, acquitted the accused, and set aside the judgments of both lower courts. Any fine paid was directed to be refunded, and the bail bond was cancelled.

Important Precedent on Eyewitness Reliability, Speed, and Criminal Negligence

This judgment sets a strong precedent reaffirming that criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that rash and negligent driving must be proved by more than speculative or unreliable testimony. The Court emphasized that:

• High speed alone is insufficient to convict under Section 279 IPC.

• Eyewitnesses must be credible, present at the scene, and consistent.

• The accused’s conduct must be proximate and foreseeable to the outcome.

Date of Decision: 29 April 2025