NEW DELHI, APRIL 6, 2025 – In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has ruled that driving at a high speed does not automatically imply rash or negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court emphasized that for conviction under these provisions, the act must specifically be “rash” and “negligent.”
The verdict was delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who observed:
“…to constitute an offence under Section(s) 279/ 304A of the IPC, the act on the part of the person who causes the death of any person/ or endanger human life so as to cause, or likely to cause hurt or injury has to be a “rash” and “negligent”. To sustain any punishment/ conviction of any such person thereunder, it is pre-requisite that it has to be “rash” and “negligent”.”
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Petitioner, employed as a cleaner by the car owner, was allegedly convinced by friends to take them on a drive. On the way back, the Petitioner lost control of the car and fatally hit two pedestrians. After the accident, it was claimed that the Petitioner and his friends fled the scene via a local bus, without assisting the victims.
A chargesheet was filed under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) convicted the Petitioner, sentencing him to:
Two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304A IPC
Six months simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC
₹50,000 fine to be paid to each deceased’s family, or an additional month of imprisonment on default
The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) later upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 18 months. The Petitioner then challenged the ruling before the Delhi High Court.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
PETITIONER:
Represented by Advocate Siddhant Buxy, the Petitioner argued:
That the conviction was based solely on him driving at a “high speed”
High speed, in itself, does not necessarily mean “rash or negligent” driving
RESPONDENT:
Additional Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar, for the State, submitted:
Multiple eyewitnesses confirmed that the Petitioner was driving at very high speed
Loss of control and fatalities indicated rashness and negligence
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS
The Court reviewed the testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses (PW1–PW4), who stated that the car was moving at high speed, but none confirmed rash or negligent behavior.
“…it emerges from the aforesaid depositions of PW1 to PW4 that though all of them deposed that the petitioner was driving the Car at a “high speed”, however, neither of them deposed that the petitioner was driving the Car in a “rash and negligent” manner. This Court, thus, does not find any evidence on record which reflects that the petitioner was indeed driving the Car in a “rash and negligent” manner.”
The Court further emphasized that high speed alone does not establish liability:
“In any event, merely because the petitioner was driving at a “high speed” it cannot lead to the conclusion that there was any element of his being “rash and negligent”. The petitioner driving at a “high speed” does not/ cannot in itself always mean and/ or establish that he was acting in “rash and negligent” manner. Thus, even assuming that the petitioner was driving at a “high speed”, the same is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was, in fact, driving the Car in a “rash and negligent” manner.”
The Bench also noted that the mechanical inspection report revealed that the vehicle was in poor condition, which may have contributed to the accident.
COURT’S FINAL VERDICT
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, thus the essential ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A IPC were not fulfilled.
“Succinctly put, there being an overall infirmity and unfilled lacunae in the case set up by the prosecution, the 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. Therefore, the necessary ingredients of Section(s) 279/ 304A of the IPC, not being fulfilled, neither of them are attracted. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be punished and/ or be held guilty of the offence(s) thereunder.”
The High Court set aside the conviction and discharged the Petitioner of all charges.
CASE DETAILS:
Case Title: Manish Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi
Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:2169
Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocates Siddhant Buxy, Rupinder Kaur
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Satish Kumar
