If A Mishap Occurs Due To Negligence Of Pedestrian, No Criminal Liability Can Be Fixed On Vehicle: Mumbai Court Acquits Accused Of Rash Driving

Background

• In the case State of Maharashtra v/s Smt. Swapnila Sakhalkar filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Mumbai, the accused, Smt. SwapnilaSakhalkar was facing trial for offenses punishable under section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and 134 (a) and 134 (b) of the M.V. Act.
• The complainant, Ms. Apeksha Shah claimed that one four-wheeler came from the back and hit her due to which she fell down on the road to the left side of the vehicle. At that time, the said car ran over her right calf, fracturing her leg and thumb.
• The said accident happened on 20th October 2015 and the next day a complaint was lodged by Miss. Apeksha’s father with the police station regarding the accident.

Proceedings of the Case

• After the particulars of the charge sheet were read to the accused, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused defended that the said car was not being driven by her and a false case came to be registered to receive compensation.
• During the trial, the prosecution argued that there was evidence that showed that the accused was negligent which resulted in the accident.
• While opposing the above submission made by the prosecution, the Counsel for the accused, Advocate Bhushan Deshmukh argued that there was no evidence to hold that the accused was driving the car when the accident happened, and hence there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that there was negligence or rashness on the part of the by the accused.
• Metropolitan Magistrate Pravin P Deshmane stated that “While crossing or walking the road the pedestrian must take precaution. If any mishap happened due to the negligence of the pedestrian no criminal liability would be fixed on the vehicle.”

Court’s Observation

• The Mumbai Court recently acquitted a 56 year old woman accused of rash and negligent driving.
• The court held that the complainant failed to specify the exact location of the accident as laid down in State vs. Ian Joseph Salzar and also failed to explain the reason for not using the footpath meant for pedestrians.
• The Court opined that the evidence provided by the informant was a vague general without specifying the exact factor which shows the negligence or rashness on the part of the said lady car driver. The meaning of negligent driving and rashness has been laid down in the State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Bacchudas @ Balram and others.
• The Court also said that had there been a witness, the exact facts would have been come on record to point out not only the involvement of the accused but also the pivotal factor of the accident.
• After inspecting the complete evidence, the court observed that “there is nothing trustworthy to fix the involvement of the accused in the alleged accident and no substantial particulars are put forth to establish the negligent driving of the alleged vehicle.”

What do you think about the Court’s Observation in this case?