High Speed Alone Not Enough To Prove Rash, Negligent Driving: Madras High Court

Justice G Arul Murugan observed that criminality could not be presumed and had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“Unless rashness or negligence is established beyond doubt, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere driving at high speed alone does not prove 'rashness' or 'negligence' constituting the offences under Sections 279 and 304 A of IPC. Criminality cannot be presumed, but subject to statutory presumptions if any available. It was upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt about the rash and negligent driving of the accused which resulted in the accident,” the court observed.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Udhayakumar against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC. The court had sentenced him to 6 months' imprisonment under Section 279 of the IPC and 1 year imprisonment under Section 304A of the IPC.

The case against Udhayakumar was that on November 3, 2014, he was driving a bus in a rash and negligent manner, under the influence of alcohol, and hit an auto, resulting in injury to the auto driver. Though the auto driver was taken to the hospital, he died on the same day.

Based on a complaint by an eyewitness, a case was registered. After completing the investigation, the final report was filed for offences under Sections 279 and 304 (ii) of the IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After trial, the judge held that the offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act had not been proved. The court, however, convicted and sentenced him under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

Udhayakumar argued that mere speeding of a vehicle would not constitute an offence under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and that rash and negligent driving had to be established by the prosecution to sustain a conviction. It was also argued that the trial court had erred in convicting him despite the absence of cogent evidence establishing the charges.

The State, on the other hand, argued that two witnesses had clearly deposed that the appellant had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which sufficiently established the charge. It was argued that in the absence of any defect in the vehicle, and no explanation on the defence's side, it would only be rash and negligent driving of the appellant that would have resulted in the accident and loss of life.

The court noted that the accident had occurred when the vehicles were crossing the Adyar bridge. The court also noted that as per the testimony of one witness, he was driving a car, which was behind the bus, and the auto was in front of the bus. The court thus noted that the witness would not have seen the auto or the manner in which the auto was driven and whether any negligent act was committed by the victim auto driver resulting in the accident.

With respect to the second witness, the court noted that as per his testimony, he was driving a bike and the bus had overtaken him and hit the autorickshaw. The court noted that the witness had not stated anything about the rash or negligent driving but had only deposed that the bus was being driven at high speed. This alone, in the opinion of the court, was not enough to establish rash or negligent driving.

Thus, noting that there was no evidence to establish rash and negligent driving, the court opined that the conviction and sentence could not be sustained and set aside the same, by allowing the appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Dr. G. Krishnamurthy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Dinesh Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Udhayakumar v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 447

Case No: CRL A No 512 of 2022