High speed alone is insufficient to prove criminal rashness or negligence under Section 304A IPC.

On September 22, 1999, at approximately 11:15 P.M., Constable Chander Pal (deceased) was allegedly struck by a tanker lorry (HR-47-5860) driven by the respondent while crossing the road near Nangloi Chowk

The prosecution’s primary witness, PW6, claimed the vehicle was being driven at high speed, took a sudden turn, and hit the deceased

PW6 then allegedly chased and apprehended the respondent near a water tank

The trial court acquitted the respondent on August 11, 2015, citing a lack of evidence regarding rashness and negligence, and questioning the credibility of PW6

The State appealed this acquittal

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as required under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC

2. Whether the testimony of the sole eye-witness (PW6) was sufficient and credible enough to establish the identity and guilt of the driver

3. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant interference by the appellate court

The court applied Section 279 of the IPC regarding rash driving on a public way and Section 304A of the IPC concerning causing death by negligence

It relied on Naresh Giri v. State of Madhya Pradesh, establishing that criminal negligence requires a gross failure to exercise care

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, defining negligence as the omission to do what a reasonable man would do

following State of Karnataka v. Satish, the court held that the maxim res ipsa loquitur is generally inapplicable to criminal negligence cases, and "high speed" is a relative term that does not inherently prove rashness

The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove the "manner" of driving. PW6’s testimony relied on general descriptors like "high speed" and "negligent," which the court deemed insufficient without concrete facts such as road width, traffic conditions, or skid marks

The Site Plan (Ext. PW8/B) was found deficient as it lacked vital technical details like blood stains or position of the vehicle

On the issue of identity, the court noted that PW6 admitted to not seeing the driver at the time of the impact

Furthermore, the court found PW6’s conduct—claiming to chase a tanker on an unidentified private vehicle at night instead of informing the nearby police station—to be improbable

Since the mechanical report showed no fresh damage to the tanker, the trial court's doubt was deemed a "possible view"

The prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of rashness and negligence beyond reasonable doubt, and the identity of the driver remained shrouded in uncertainty due to the doubtful conduct of the sole eye-witness. All pending applications were closed