Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 61

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
State – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Choudhary – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 308 of 2017
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Utkarsh, Shivam
For the Respondents: Alok Sharma, Aditya Sharma

In criminal appeals, if evidence allows reasonable doubt regarding guilt, the court must favor the accused's innocence, especially in cases of alleged negligent driving leading to fatal outcomes.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A - Appeal against acquittal of the accused of driving in a rash and negligent manner, leading to fatal injuries - The court evaluates whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity of the driver and evidence of rashness or negligence. The trial court's benefit of doubt to the accused was deemed appropriate, given the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to rash driving. (Paras 2, 12, 24)

(B) Criminal Law - Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, if two reasonable views of evidence are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. (Para 23)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a bus accident where the accused was alleged to have fled after hitting a pedestrian, resulting in her death. Evidence included witness statements but lacked conclusive proof of identity and negligent conduct. (Paras 1-26)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was indeed driving the vehicle dangerously at the relevant time. (Paras 24-25)

Issues: Central question was whether the prosecution established the accused's identity as the driver at the time of the accident and whether his driving was negligent. (Para 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The acquittal was justified given the evidence did not conclusively identify the accused as driving recklessly, adhering to the principle that reasonable doubt favors the accused. (Paras 23-24)

Result: Appeal dismissed; trial court's decision to acquit the accused affirmed.

Table of Content
1. appeal challenging acquittal of accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments for appeal and defense. (Para 9 , 10)
3. analysis of evidence and legal standards. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of acquittal. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the State in Case No. 661/2012 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, North East Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 14.10.2013 as per which the sole accused has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ) giving him the benefit of doubt.

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.02.2002, at about 07:45 A.M., at T-point, GT Road, Delhi, the accused drove bus bearing registration no. DL-1PA-7989 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. The accused lost control of his vehicle and knocked down Shameem, the mother of PW3 and PW4 and fled from the spot. Shameem thereafter succumbed to injuries on the same date at 01:15P.M.Hence, as per the charge- sheet/final report dated 03.04.2002, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC .

3. On the basis of Exhibit PW7/A FIS of Shameem, given on 16.02.2002, Crime no. 39/2002, Seelampur Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW8/B FIR was registered by PW8,Woman Sub-Inspector. PW7, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. PW7 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 03.04.2002alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. On appearance before the trial magistrate, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On07.05.2003, the substance of the accusation as contemplated under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 10 were examined and Exhibits PW7/A-J, PW8/A-D and PW9/B were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against himin the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

7. On behalf of the accused, DW1 and DW2 were examined. No documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgement dated 14.10.2013,acquitted the accused under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC . Aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal.

9. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent was driving the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the accident occurred causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The finding of acquittal is contrary to the materials available on record and suffers from non-appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution.

10. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and does not suffer from any infirmity calling for an interference by this Court. The findings of the trial court are neither perverse nor contrary to law, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. Heard both sides and perused the records.

12. The only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document