Mere Usage Of Term “High Speed” By Witness Is Insufficient To Establish Rash Or Negligent Driving: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a mere statement by a witness that the accused was driving the vehicle at 'high speed' is not sufficient to establish negligence.Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: "Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on the statement of a witness that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed, and the prosecution has to establish specific negligence of...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a mere statement by a witness that the accused was driving the vehicle at 'high speed' is not sufficient to establish negligence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that: "Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on the statement of a witness that he was driving the vehicle at a high speed, and the prosecution has to establish specific negligence of the accused."
In July 2009, the informant parked his car near a school in Una with one tyre on the kachha portion and another on the pucca portion of the road. He alleged that the bus driver hit his car from behind at high speed.
The police filed a challan before the trial court for an offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code against an HRTC driver.
The trial court held that the accused hit the car from the rear. The place of the incident was straight, and the accused could have easily stopped the bus. It further noted that there were skid marks on the road, which showed that the accused was driving the vehicle at high speed.
Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal before the appellate court. However, the accused was acquitted, holding that there was insufficient material to conclude the negligence of the accused, and the possibility of the informant suddenly applying brakes was also probable.
The State then filed an appeal before the High Court. It contended that the appellate court was wrong in holding that the informant might have suddenly applied the brakes as the car was parked on the edge of the road, and the question of suddenly applying the brakes could not arise.
The Court noted that the informant admitted that his car was parked on the highway. The court reiterated that by parking the car on the main highway, the informant violated Rule 15 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which prohibits parking on a main road or a road carrying fast traffic.
Therefore, the Court remarked that the informant was negligent as he had parked the car on the road without switching on the parking lights or the indicators.
Contending that the accident occurred due to high speed is not sufficient. In Mohanta Lal v/s State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that the use of the term 'high speed' by a witness amounts to nothing unless it is elicited from the witness what is understood by the term 'high speed'.
Thus, the Court upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Ram Pal
Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 332 of 2012
Date of Decision: 11.09.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate