The Court said that high speed alone does not establish rashness or negligence, and the evidence of the sole eye witness lacked credibility.
Cause Title: Harish v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:17717)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Pavan Kumar M.S., M. Sharass Chandra
Respondent: High Court Government Pleader Channappa Erappa
The sight of speeding vehicles on Indian roads often triggers concerns about safety and accountability. When an accident occurs, the common presumption is that high speed automatically translates into rash or negligent driving. But is that truly the case in the eyes of the law? Can a person be held criminally liable merely for driving fast, even if an accident occurs?
This article explores the nuanced relationship between high-speed driving, rashness, and negligence under Indian criminal law, particularly in light of recent judicial pronouncements, including the Karnataka High Court’s 2025 decision in Harish v. State of Karnataka (CRL.RP No. 1004 of 2021)
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere high speed does not constitute rashness or negligence under law, and acquitted a man convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for allegedly causing a fatal motor accident.
The Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K observed, “Rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Court noted that “ the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 has settled the position of law that mere driving of vehicle in high speed neither amounts to negligence nor rashness in itself..”
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC for allegedly driving a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and causing the death of a person seated on a motorbike. The conviction was based on a complaint lodged by the pillion rider, who claimed that while they had stopped the vehicle to attend nature’s call, the Petitioner drove his car in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorbike, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased, who later succumbed in hospital.
On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered and, after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The Trial Court convicted the Petitioner and imposed sentence. The First Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. The Petitioner filed the present revision petition contending that the evidence of the sole eyewitness was unreliable, and that the prosecution failed to establish rash and negligent driving through cogent evidence.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of PW-1, the complainant. However, the Court found his version unreliable and noted, “The evidence of this witness generates doubt in the mind of this Court that, he is a chance witness to the prosecution, who appeared out of thin air and later disappeared on adducing evidence.”
The Court further noted that PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that he went to the hospital after receiving a call from the accused and that the accused had taken the injured to the hospital himself, and PW-1 was not present during the spot mahazar and identified the vehicle only at the police station.
The Court also took into account the defence that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and had driven haphazardly. The postmortem report supported this, stating, “The remains in the stomach smelt pungent with strong traces of alcohol.”
The Court referred to the decision in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) wherein it was held that merely because the truck was being driven at a ‘high speed’ does not be speak of either ‘negligence’ or ‘rashness’ by itself, and in the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of ‘rashness’ or ‘negligence’ could be drawn by invoking the maxim res ipsa loquitur.
The Court clarified, “Negligence essentially is defined… as a breach of duty… coupled with willful omission of doing something which a prudent person would have done in similar circumstance… Rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation, it significantly depends on facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt, and that the First Appellate Court erred in confirming the conviction.
Consequently, the Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, cancelled the Petitioner’s bail bond, and directed that the fine amount, if any, be refunded.
.