Concept Of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur' Is Merely An Aid For Evidence In Criminal Cases, Not Substantive Law: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court (on January 08) observed that the principle of res ipsa loquitur (accident speaks for itself) can be extended to criminal cases, only as an aid for assessment of evidence. The maxim does not embody any rule of substantive law nor a rule of evidence., said the Court.The Bench of Justice K Babu observed thus while acquitting an accused, convicted of rash and negligent driving. It was the prosecution's case that the accused was a driver of a private bus. He drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit a KSRTC bus. The accident, inter-alia, caused causing death of two persons who were travelling in the KSRTC bus. The Trial Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur and concluded that the private bus went to the wrong side of the road. Thus, the present revision petition was filed before the High Court.The Court observed that the document relied upon by the magistrate contained the facts that the investigating officer saw at the scene. However, the officer did not give any evidence regarding the place of occurrence.Reliance was placed on several judgments including Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 745, to highlight that mere production of a document is not proof of its content. The same will have to be proved by admissible evidence.The Court said that there was no evidence whatsoever regarding the scene of occurrence by the officer or witnesses.“The learned Magistrate, relying on the description in Ext.P3, came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle had gone to the wrong side of the road which resulted in the incident. Based on Ext.P3, the contents of the same left without admissible proof, the learned Magistrate applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur.,” the Court added.On the application of the principle res ipsa loquitur, the Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493. Therein, it explained:“4…..In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions…. ”It also drew strength from its previous decision in Kesava Pillai v. State of Kerala., 1985 KLT SN 62 (C.No.92), wherein it held maxim is available in criminal cases only as an aid for assessment of evidence.Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the Trial Court's decision was untenable in law. It also pointed out that the witnesses have in their statement said that the vehicle was driven at high speed and not in a rash or negligent manner.“In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused drove the vehicle in a high speed within the meaning of rashness and negligence. The trial Court and the Sessions Court came to unreasonable conclusions. There is palpable misreading of records. The conviction of guilt is liable to be set aside.” the Court said before setting aside the impugned judgment and acquitting the accused.Case Name: MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 14Case No: CRL.REV.PET NO. 2099 OF 2007Click Here To Read/Download Order

Concept Of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur' Is Merely An Aid For Evidence In Criminal Cases, Not Substantive Law: Kerala High Court

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags