Driver Cannot Be Held Liable Because He Survived Accident Which Resulted In Deaths: P&H HC Acquits Truck Driver In Rash & Negligent Driving Case
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted a truck driver in rash and negligent driving case of 2012 wherein two passengers died in the incident of "head on collision" of vehicles.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "whether the act of the petitioner was rash or negligent, is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and merely because two persons have died in the ill-fated vehicle, and the petitioner has survived being sitting on a higher wheel, would not be sufficient to presume the guilt of the petitioner."
The Court further said that a Court cannot presume existence of a fact, which is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. "It is a burden upon the prosecution to prove that the act of the present petitioner was rash or negligent, while driving his truck, by leading cogent evidence," it added.
An appeal was filed against an conviction order passed by Magistrate's Court in 2016 wherein Jarnail Singh was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 of the IPC and, sentenced to six months, two years and one year respectively.
In 2012 two persons scummed to injuries suffered in a road accident wherein a car and truck collided. Singh was arrested for rash and negligent driving being a driver of the offending truck.
After examining the submissions, the Court noted that, the case revolves around the statements of the two prosecution witnesses who are the eyewitnesses, and also the occupants of the ill-fated vehicle, and according to their statements, on the fateful day, the petitioner while driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, straightway collided with their vehicle.
On the statements of the above two witnesses, the Court concluded that the act of the petitioner was rash and negligent, while driving the truck, it added.
Justice Tiwari highlighted that, in case of a roadside accident, in order to prove the act of a person, either rash or negligent, the site plan is one of a crucial evidence, from which a court can appreciate; whether, the driver of the offending vehicle was driving, with a standard of due care and caution, or rashly and negligently.
"From the photographs as placed on record, it reflects that the car struck on the back side of the truck, whereas, from the eyewitness account, it was the case of head on collision. To rule out any discrepancy, the site plan would have depicted the place and status of each vehicle on the road, and thereupon, the court below would have been in a position to analysis; whether, the act of the driver of the offending vehicle was rash or negligent or not," the Court added.
Observing that there is gross lacking in the instant case, the Court held that, there is "dent in the story of the prosecution, which goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the benefit of doubt goes to the petitioner/accused."
In the light of the above the convict was acquitted.
Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
Title: JARNAIL SINGH ALIAS JAILU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 297