-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
"When Mechanical Failure Is Probable, Court Cannot Presume Negligence" – In a significant ruling Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice G. Basavaraja, set aside the conviction of Sri Rajesh, who had been found guilty by the trial court and appellate court for rash and negligent driving, leading to the death of six passengers and injuries to several others in a road accident.
The Court observed — “When there is credible evidence of mechanical failure, a conviction based merely on assumptions of high speed or negligence cannot be sustained.”
“In Absence of Reliable Eye-Witnesses, Prosecution Cannot Build Its Case on Presumptions” – High Court Notes While Acquitting the Accused
Court Begins With Sharp Criticism of the Investigation
The judgment opened with the Court expressing its serious displeasure at the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
The Court noted — “It is astonishing that the prosecution did not deem it necessary to examine the Motor Vehicle Inspector, whose report (Exhibit P33) was the most critical piece of evidence in determining whether the accident was caused by a mechanical failure or rash driving.”
The case revolved around an accident that occurred on 20th May 2008, where the accused, Sri Rajesh, was driving a jeep bearing registration number KA-21-A-5466 after performing religious rituals at the Subramanya Temple. Near Siribagilu, the vehicle lost control, hit a tree, toppled, and resulted in the death of six passengers and injuries to others.
The accused was convicted by the Trial Court (2015) under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court (2016).
"When Witnesses Admit They Were Not Present at the Time of Accident, Their Testimony Cannot Sustain Conviction" – High Court
The Court noted glaring contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant himself candidly admitted — “I reached the accident spot five minutes after the incident.”
Similar admissions were made by other key witnesses including PW4 and PW5, who clearly stated — “When we arrived, the accident had already occurred and many people were already present at the spot.”
The Court remarked — “These are not eye-witnesses; they are post-incident witnesses. Their statements cannot establish the alleged rashness or negligence of the driver.”
The only alleged eye-witness, PW6, completely turned hostile and denied his previous statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
“If Steering Failure Is Probable, The Presumption of Rash Driving Must Yield” – High Court Endorses Defence
The defence produced DW1, an experienced mechanic, who testified — “The accident was a result of steering failure. After the crash, I observed that the steering pipe and worm were broken. When the steering worm is cut, the driver cannot control the vehicle under any circumstances.”
The Court found this testimony credible, especially when read alongside the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report (Ex.P33), which noted — “Steering system damaged” but failed to categorically rule out mechanical failure as the cause.
The Court observed — “Had the prosecution examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the matter could have been conclusively established. Their failure to do so leaves a significant doubt in the mind of the Court.”
“The Law Does Not Demand the Accused to Prove His Innocence Beyond Reasonable Doubt” – Court Clarifies Standard of Defence
Referring to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court reiterated — “It is not for the accused to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient for him to create a doubt in the prosecution’s case. This is the cardinal principle of criminal law.”
The Court further noted — “The accident’s occurrence alone cannot justify the conclusion that the driver was rash or negligent. The cause of the accident must be proved with certainty, and mere assumptions are no substitute for evidence.”
Driving Without Licence — Not Proved, Court Rejects Prosecution’s Claim
On the charge under Section 3 r/w 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court found the prosecution’s case equally lacking.
It recorded — “The explanation of the accused that he lost his driving licence following a head injury during the accident appears entirely plausible. In absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, the prosecution has failed to prove this charge.”
“High Speed Alone Does Not Constitute Negligence” – Karnataka High Court Cautions Trial Courts
The Court squarely addressed the oft-misapplied assumption regarding high-speed vehicles:
“Merely stating that a vehicle was being driven at high speed cannot amount to rashness or negligence. Unless it is shown that the speed was so excessive that it endangered human life or was in disregard of road conditions, the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338, or 304A IPC cannot be made out.”
It pointed out that the presence of a sharp curve at the accident spot, which was admitted by multiple prosecution witnesses but not recorded in the spot mahazar, was a glaring omission in the investigation.
Bringing the judgment to a close, the Court noted —
“The entirety of the evidence, including the mechanical defect in the steering system, the absence of reliable eye-witnesses, and the investigative lapses, compels this Court to hold that the conviction is unsustainable.”
“In a criminal case, suspicion cannot take the place of proof,” the Court emphasized.
Order
“The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.”
“The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court on 26.09.2016 is hereby set aside.”
“The accused is acquitted of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.”
“If any fine has been deposited by the accused, it shall be refunded to him.”
Date of Decision: 25 June 2025
