Criminal liability for rash and negligent driving causing death requires substantive evidence of reckless conduct beyond mere speed. Prosecution's failure to demonstrate specific failures in duty or hazardous interaction on the road leads to the inevitable failure of the charge.

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the respondent/State in Sessions Case No. 556 of 2009 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, North East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 05.10.2013 as per which the sole accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 04.12.1995 at 09:00 PM at G.T Road, Opposite Gurudwara New Seelampur, the accused drove truck bearing registration no. UP-15D-9150 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety and knocked down one Pawan Kumar Jaiswal who was riding a two-wheeler. When the rider fell on the road, the accused is alleged to have caused his death by running the truck over his head. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act).

3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR of PW3, given on 04.12.1998, crime no. 709/1999, Seelampur Police Station, was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 299 and 304A IPC by Kamal Kishore, Sub-Inspector (SI). The said SI, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The particulars of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC as contemplated under Section 251 Cr.P.C., was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and Exts. PW2/A-D, PW3/A-E, PW4/A-C, PW6/A-B, and Mark X were marked in support of the case.

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

7. No oral or 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 05.10.2015, acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. Aggrieved, the respondent/State has come up in appeal.

9. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The incident took place in a crowded area, which clearly indicates that the accused was under a duty to exercise a high degree of caution while driving. However, the materials on record show that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is further submitted that even after realising that the truck had hit the scooter, the accused failed to stop the vehicle, which led to the victim being run over by the truck. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside, and the accused be convicted in accordance with the law.