The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that death was caused by specific rash or negligent acts; criminal negligence cannot be presumed under 'res ipsa loquitur' based merely on an accident's occurrence, especially during appellate reviews where the acquittal is not demonstrably perverse.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.PC), the respondent/State in Sessions Case No. 556 of 2009 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 11.08.2015 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 22.02.1999 at about 11:15 P.M. at Nangloi Chowk, Najafgarh Road, the accused drove tanker lorry bearing registration no. HR-47-5860 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety and knocked down one Constable Chander Pal, brother of PW7, who was crossing the road along with PW6 and fled from the spot. Chander Pal thereafter succumbed to injuries on the same date and was declared as “brought dead” by the hospital. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A IPC and Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act).

3. On the basis of Ext. PW6/A FIS/FIR of PW6, given on 22.09.1999, crime no. 1025/1999, Nangloi Police Station, was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 299 and 304A IPC by PW1, Head Constable. PW8 was entrusted with the investigation of 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. On appearance before the trial magistrate, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. The particulars of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC as contemplated under Section 251 Cr.PC, was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exts. PW1/A, PW2/A, PW3/A, PW4/A, PW5/A, PW6/A-D, PW7/A, PW8/A-D and Mark PW8/1 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 11.08.2015, acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.PC. 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, is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, is bad in law as the trial court has failed to appreciate the legal maxim res ipsa loquitur (things speaks for itself) as a rule of evidence for determining the onus of proof and, therefore, liable to be set aside. It was further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent/accused was driving the offending tanker 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 on record as the trial cou