IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 22.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on:20.02.2026 + CRL.L.P. 286/2018 STATE .....Petitioner versus SABU ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv. with SI Pavan Kumar Yadav, PS Sunlight Colony.

For the Respondent : Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Adv. (DHCLSC)

with Ms. Nitya Jain, Adv.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12.02.2018 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’), passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’) in the case arising out of FIR no. 497/2016 dated 21.11.2016, registered at Police Station Sunlight Colony.

2. Briefly stated, it is alleged that on 20.11.2016, the respondent was driving a truck on a public road in a rash and negligent manner. It is alleged that while driving the said truck, the respondent struck against a motorcycle from behind and caused the death of the victim, who was driving the motorcycle.

3. The learned MM vide judgment dated 12.02.2018 acquitted the respondent for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment in regard to the respondents reads as under:

“20 As far as the offence made punishable u/s. 279 IPC is concerned, before the accident, it is not clear as to how or in what manner did the accused act in a rash and negligent manner by driving the truck in question. As per PW1, the accused herein was driving his vehicle at a speed of about 40 kms per hour. The same cannot be said to be too excessive a speed. PW2 claims that the speed of the truck was 60 kms per hour. That to cannot be said to be too high. Thus before the accident how and in what manner did the accused drive the truck, to call such driving as rash and negligent to endanger human life is not clear from the evidence before this court. Accordingly, accused is acquitted of the said charge made punishable u/s. 279 IPC.”

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the learned MM has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC. He submitted that the findings of the learned MM are perverse and are not based on correct appreciation of the evidence. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate that PW1 and PW2 have explicitly stated that the truck was being driven rashly in a zig zag manner.

5. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has overlooked the admission by the respondent that the truck was loaded with 8000 bricks weighing 32000Kg and the weight of the truck was about 7000Kg, which establishes his negligence as the heavy load was 2.5 times over the permissible allowed weight. He submitted that despite the heavy truck load, the respondent drove negligently and hit the victim.

6. He submitted that the respondent has been convicted for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving, whereby, the acquittal for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC on account of rash and negligent act not being proved is manifestly erroneous.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the respondent’s acquittal for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC and the respondent has already challenged his conviction under Section 304A of the IPC, which is pending consideration before the learned Court of Sessions.

ANALYSIS

8. It is trite law that this Court must exercise caution and should only interfere in an appeal against acquittal where there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. At the stage of grant of leave to appeal, the High Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellant or if such arguable points have been raised which would merit interference. The Hon’ble Ap