A conviction under Sections 279/304A IPC can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence including site plan and driver's admission, applying res ipsa loquitur, even if eyewitness testimony is challenged.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 (Rash driving or riding on a public way) and 304A (Causing death by negligence) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(b) (Appeal against acquittal).

(B) Criminal liability under Sections 279/304A IPC - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and that such rashness or negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the death. Reliance placed on Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 7 SCC 353 (para 25) and Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 (para 26) - ingredients: (i) manner of driving; (ii) driving either rashly or negligently; (iii) such driving endangers human life.

(C) Application of res ipsa loquitur - Where the nature of accident and attending circumstances reasonably lead to the conclusion that in the absence of negligence the accident would not have occurred, the maxim applies. The site plan clearly showed the truck deviated from the main road to the wrong side and went onto the roadside empty area where the child was sitting, indicating negligence (paras 47-48).

(D) Eyewitness testimony - The father (PW-1) was held to be a reliable eyewitness; the fact that his statement was recorded two hours after the accident and that the mother’s name appeared on the MLC did not discredit his presence (paras 34-40). The admission of the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the child came under his vehicle further corroborated the prosecution case (para 42).

Facts of the case:
On 05.12.2012 at about 11 A.M., a two-year-old child was run over by a TATA Ace Truck allegedly driven rashly and negligently by the respondent. The child died. The father (PW-1) witnessed the accident. The accused was apprehended at the spot. The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving. The State appealed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court reversed the acquittal, holding that the site plan Ex.PW1/F demonstrated the truck went to the wrong side of the road and onto the roadside where the child was sitting, which itself spoke of negligence. The father’s testimony was credible and corroborated by the mother (PW-4) and the accused’s own admission under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondent’s explanation that he had parked the vehicle and started it after delivering food did not explain the deviation to the wrong side. Negligence was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that the respondent drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. 2. Whether the trial court erred in disbelieving the eyewitness (PW-1). 3. Whether the circumstances (site plan, admission) themselves established negligence (res ipsa loquitur).

Ratio Decidendi: The mere occurrence of an accident where a vehicle leaves the main road and runs over a child sitting on the roadside, coupled with the driver’s admission that the child came under the vehicle, constitutes sufficient evidence of negligence. The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies. An appellate court can interfere with an acquittal if the trial court ignored overwhelming evidence and erroneous reasoning. Result : Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of acquittal set aside. Respondent convicted under Sections 279/304A IPC. Matter listed for sentence.

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/State to challenge the Judgment dated 24.12.2019, whereby learned CMM-04 (North), Delhi has acquitted the Accused/Respondent, Shiv Shankar for the offence under section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) in case FIR No.420/2012 registered at P.S. Alipur, Delhi.

2. The facts in brief are that on 05.12.2012 at about 11 A.M., one child, Veer @ Aditya, aged about 2 years was run over allegedly by the TATA Ace Truck bearing registration No. DL 1LP 6713, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, by the Respondent. The child was taken to

SRHC Hospital immediately by his mother, Babli and other neighbours, but the child was declared “dead”.

3. On receipt of information about the accident vide DD No.15. SI Satbir Singh who along with Const. S.K. Jahangir, reached the spot where the respondent and the offending truck were standing.

4. ASI Omender Kumar took over the investigations. He reached the spot Const. Sunil Kumar was left on the spot and he went to the Hospital, where the child had already been declared dead. He recorded the statement of eye witness, Sh. Ashok Kumar, father of the child, and got the FIR No.420/2012 P.S. Alipur, registered.

5. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigations, the Chargesheet was filed in the Court.

6. Charge under Section 279/304A IPC was framed against the Accused/Respondent on 12.05.2014, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. During the investigation, statements of PW1, Ashok Kumar, father, PW2, Ram Das Dhimar, the Uncle and PW4, Babli, mother were recorded, who deposed about the manner of the accident.

8. The statement of PW3, Manoj Dass, owner of the TATA Ace Truck was also recorded who was served with a Notice under Section 133 M.V. Act Ex.PW3/A. wherein he stated that the vehicle was being driven by his son, who had been apprehended on the spot.

9. PW11, SI Satbir Singh, along with PW10, Const. S.K. Jahangir, had reached the spot on receiving the information about the accident vide DD No.15.

10. PW7, ASI Omender Kumar was the I.O., who conducted the investigations, and was joined by PW11, SI Satbir Singh and Const. Sunil.

11. The Chargesheet was filed against the Respondent under Section 279/304A IPC.

12. The Statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence and the material put to him. However, he explained that he had parked his vehicle on the side of the road and had gone to a nearby school, for delivering food. When he returned from the school and started his vehicle, he noticed that a child had come beneath the Truck. He, did not examine any witness in support of his defence.

13. The learned CMM considered the testimony of PW1, Ashok Kumar, PW2, Ram Das Dhimar and PW4, Babli and concluded that they were not the eye witnesses and there was no evidence brought on record by the Prosecution, to show that the vehicle indeed was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Respondent. Consequently, benefit was given to the Respondent who was thereby, acquitted.

14. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred the present Appeal. The grounds of challenge are that the evidence recorded before the Trial Court, has not been appreciated correctly. It was a crystal-clear case about the identity of the Accused and the offending vehicle. The Accused was the person who was driving the offending vehicle and the death of the child, were established. The Prosecution, therefore, successfully proved that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

15. PW1, Ashok Kumar the eye witness fully supported the case of the Prosecution. The testimony of PW1 has not been appreciated correctly, to

conclude that he was not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINeena Bansal Krishna, JSTATE NCT OF DELHI – AppellantVersusSHIV SHANKER – RespondentCRL.A.-109/2026

A conviction under Sections 279/304A IPC can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence including site plan and driver's admission, applying res ipsa loquitur, even if eyewitness testimony is challenged.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Appellant
Versus
SHIV SHANKER – Respondent
CRL.A.-109/2026