28 June 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Rash driving or riding on a public way >> Criminal Law  

The State's appeal challenging the acquittal of Mamta Sehgal (Respondent No.1) under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been dismissed. The original judgment, dated November 21, 2019, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, had acquitted Ms. Sehgal of these charges but convicted her, and Mukesh Pal (Respondent No.2), under Sections 146/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act (M.V. Act) for driving without insurance. Mukesh Pal had admitted his guilt.

Background of the Case:

The case stemmed from an incident on April 21, 2016, where complainant Surender Bahadur Tiwari, while cycling, was allegedly hit by a car driven by Ms. Sehgal in a rash and negligent manner on the Peeragarhi Flyover, sustaining grievous injuries. Ms. Sehgal then fled the scene. The complainant, after two days, filed a written complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR.

During the trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses, including the complainant who identified the vehicle and driver. Ms. Sehgal, in her defense, claimed the cyclist hit her car from behind, and she stopped to offer help, even giving Rs. 3,500 to the injured cyclist before leaving. She denied any rash or negligent driving.

Grounds for Acquittal and Appeal:

The Metropolitan Magistrate had acquitted Ms. Sehgal of the IPC charges, finding that the prosecution failed to prove rashness and negligence. The State appealed this decision, arguing that the complainant's testimony fully supported the prosecution's story and that the trial court had overlooked crucial details.

Court's Analysis and Decision:

The appellate court examined the evidence, noting the two-day delay in filing the FIR was adequately explained by the complainant. However, the critical aspect was to ascertain the manner of the accident. The defense suggested the cyclist hit the car from behind. This claim gained credence from the seizure memo of the bicycle, which indicated damage to the front wheel being twisted, along with damage to the rear tire, handle, and pedal. The court found that such damage was inconsistent with a rear-end collision where a car hits a bicycle from behind, and more consistent with the bicycle hitting the car from behind.

Furthermore, the Site Plan, a potentially crucial document, was prepared by the investigating officer without the complainant's input, rendering its depiction of the accident unreliable.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the complainant's testimony did not sufficiently establish that the accident occurred due to Ms. Sehgal's rash and negligent driving. The court affirmed that merely because an accident occurred, negligence cannot be automatically attributed without supporting evidence.

Given these inconsistencies and the lack of conclusive evidence of rash and negligent driving, the appeal was dismissed, upholding Ms. Sehgal's acquittal under Sections 279/338 IPC.

Section 146, Motor Vehicles Act - 1988  

Section 196, Motor Vehicles Act - 1988  

Section 279., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 338., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860