P&H HC acquits truck driver for rash and negligent driving

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a truck driver in a 2012 rash and negligent driving case that left two passengers dead in a head-on vehicle collision.

Judge Kuldeep Tiwari said, “whether the act of the petitioner was rash or negligent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and merely because two persons were killed in the ill-fated vehicle, and the petitioner survived by sitting on a higher steering wheel, would not be sufficient to prove the to assume the applicant’s guilt.”

The Court further said that a Court cannot presume that there is a fact, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. “The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the present petitioner’s act was rash or negligent while driving his truck by presenting compelling evidence,” it added.

An appeal was filed against a conviction order passed by the Magistrate’s Court in 2016, convicting Jarnail Singh of committing offenses punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 of the IPC and sentencing him to six months, two years and one year respectively.

In 2012, two people were seriously injured in a traffic accident in which a car and a truck collided. Singh was arrested for rash and negligent driving as the driver of the offending truck.

After examining the documents, the Court found that the case revolves around the statements of the two prosecution witnesses, who are the eyewitnesses, and also of the occupants of the ill-fated vehicle, and according to their statements, on the fateful day, of petitioner while driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, they immediately collided with their vehicle.

Based on the statements of the above two witnesses, the court concluded that petitioner’s act was rash and negligent while driving the truck.

Justice Tiwari emphasized that, in the event of a roadside accident, the site plan is one of the crucial pieces of evidence that a court can use to prove the act of a person, rash or negligent; whether the driver of the offending vehicle drove with due care and caution, or rashly and negligently.

“From the captured photos, it appears that the car crashed into the back of the truck, while according to the eyewitness account, it was a head-on collision. To eliminate any discrepancy, the location plan would have depicted the location and status of each vehicle on the road, and then the court below would have been able to analyze whether the act of the driver of the offending vehicle was rash or negligent or not,” the Court added.

The Court observed that there is a gross flaw in the present case and held that “there is a dent in the story of the prosecution, which goes to the heart of the matter, and therefore, the benefit of doubt goes to the petitioner/ defendant.”

Based on the above, the convict was acquitted.

Mr. AS Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

Title: JARNAIL SINGH ALIAS JAILU v STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 297

Click here to read/download the order