Mere accident cannot establish criminal negligence, rules HC

30/07/2026

JAMMU, Jul 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the mere occurrence of a road accident does not by itself establish criminal rashness or negligence, while upholding the acquittal of a mini-bus driver in a 26-year-old case involving the death of a minor.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary dismissed an appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against the acquittal of Ravi Kumar, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving.
The case relates to an accident at Sunderbani on May 22, 2000, in which five-year-old Rohit Singh lost his life. The prosecution alleged that the child was run over by a mini-bus driven by Ravi Kumar after alighting from another vehicle and attempting to cross the road with his grandfather.
The Judicial Magistrate, Sunderbani, had convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Ranbir Penal Code on August 20, 2002. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri, set aside the conviction and acquitted him on May 13, 2009.
Challenging the acquittal, Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia contended that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the child's death had a direct nexus with the respondent's alleged rash driving. He sought restoration of the conviction.
Opposing the appeal, advocates Manpreet Kour and Kamal Mangotra argued that the prosecution had failed to produce credible evidence of rashness or negligence. They submitted that passengers travelling in the mini-bus were not examined and prosecution witnesses gave materially inconsistent accounts of the incident.
The High Court observed that the prosecution's claim that the child had been run over by the mini-bus was not supported by the medical evidence. The post-mortem report recorded a contusion on the right parietal bone and abrasions on the right cheek and shoulder but no crushing injuries to the abdomen, pelvis or spine, which would ordinarily be expected if the vehicle had run over the child.
The court also found the testimony of the child's grandfather unreliable, noting that despite claiming to be an eyewitness, he could not identify which part of the vehicle had struck the child. It further observed that the child's father, who was working about 300 feet away, could not be treated as a reliable eyewitness.
After examining the evidence, Justice Chowdhary observed that two reasonable possibilities emerged: the child may have panicked on seeing the approaching vehicle and fallen on the rough road while trying to escape, or he may have come into contact with the rear portion of the moving vehicle.
"In both these probabilities, the respondent-accused cannot be stated to have acted in a rash and negligent manner," the court observed.
Reiterating that criminal rashness and negligence must involve a hazardous act showing disregard for the safety of others, the High Court held that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal merely because another view is possible when the findings of the lower court are reasonable.
Holding that the Additional Sessions Judge had properly appreciated the evidence, the High Court dismissed the UT's appeal and upheld the acquittal of the mini-bus driver.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty