Delhi High Court

ACQUITTAL REVERSED: NEGLIGENCE ESTABLISHED DESPITE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EYEWITNESS BY APPLICATION OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR PRINCIPLE.

State Nct Of Delhi vs Shiv Shanker

Delhi High CourtJUDGMENT: March 16, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

A criminal appeal was filed by the State challenging the judgment dated December 24, 2019, by the CMM-04 (North), Delhi, which acquitted the Respondent, Shiv Shankar, for offences under Section 279/304A of the IPC in FIR No. 420/2012.

Source reference: p.1

On December 5, 2012, around 11:00 AM, a two-year-old child, Veer @ Aditya, was allegedly run over by a TATA Ace Truck (DL 1LP 6713) driven by the Respondent in a rash and negligent manner.

Source reference: p.1

The child was declared dead after being taken to SRHC Hospital.

Source reference: p.2

The Respondent and the offending truck were found at the spot by SI Satbir Singh and Const. S.K. Jahangir.

Source reference: p.2

ASI Omender Kumar took over the investigation and registered the FIR based on the statement of the child's father, Ashok Kumar.

Source reference: p.2

The chargesheet was filed, and a charge under Section 279/304A IPC was framed against the Respondent on May 12, 2014, to which he pleaded not guilty.

Source reference: p.3

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Respondent admitted that a child came beneath his truck after he started it, but denied guilt, claiming he had parked his vehicle on the side of the road to deliver food.

Source reference: p.3, p.10

The CMM acquitted the Respondent, finding that the prosecution witnesses were not eyewitnesses and there was no evidence of rash and negligent driving.

Source reference: p.3
02

Issues

Whether the judgment of acquittal dated December 24, 2019, passed by the learned CMM, which acquitted the Accused/Respondent for the offence under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was erroneous.

Source reference: p.3, p.12

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the Respondent.

Source reference: p.7, p.10
03

Law Applied

The court applied Section 279 of the IPC, which deals with rash driving or riding on a public way, requiring proof that the accused drove any vehicle on a public way in a manner endangering human life or likely to cause hurt or injury.

Source reference: p.5-6

It also applied Section 304A of the IPC, pertaining to causing death by negligence.

Source reference: p.5

The court relied on the principles established in *Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284*, defining the essential elements for an offence under Section 279 IPC: (i) the manner of driving, (ii) rash or negligent driving, and (iii) such driving endangering human life.

Source reference: p.4, p.6

The legal maxim "res ipsa loquitur" (things speak for itself) was also considered applicable as a rule of evidence, particularly when the nature of the accident inherently suggests negligence.

Source reference: p.4-5
04

Reasoning

The High Court found that the CMM erred in discrediting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and ignoring the respondent's admission.

Source reference: p.12

The prosecution successfully established that the accident took place with the offending vehicle driven by the Respondent, resulting in the child's death on December 5, 2012.

Source reference: p.7

The testimony of PW1 (father) and PW4 (mother) established their presence and the circumstances of the accident, with PW1 explicitly noting the child being crushed by the truck while sitting roadside.

Source reference: p.7-9

The court rejected the CMM's reasons for disbelieving PW1, noting his explanation for being home due to illness was unrefuted, and the non-mention of his name on the MLC was not conclusive proof of his absence.

Source reference: p.8-9

Crucially, the Site Plan, Ex.PW1/F, which was unchallenged and prepared at PW1's instance, depicted the truck deflecting from the main road to the wrong side and entering the 5 ft. empty area where the child was sitting, stopping only after running over the child.

Source reference: p.11

This physical evidence, combined with the unchallenged Site Plan and the Respondent's own admission in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement that the child came beneath his vehicle, strongly indicated negligence.

Source reference: p.10-11

The court invoked *res ipsa loquitur*, stating that the circumstances themselves spoke of the Respondent's negligence, as his truck went to the wrong side of the road and off the main road without explanation.

Source reference: p.11
05

Holding

The High Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved its case under Section 279/304A IPC.

Consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated December 24, 2019, was set aside, and the Respondent was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279/304A IPC.

Source reference: p.12

The case was listed for sentencing on April 1, 2026.

Source reference: p.12
Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

State Nct Of DelhivsShiv Shanker

Delhi High Court · March 16, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment