Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set Aside- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 25 July 1979
- Bench
- Justices Ranjit Singh Sarkaria and R.S. Pathak
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304A; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 4, 114; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 313
The Court had allowed the appeal by a short order and acquitted the appellant; this judgment gives the reasons, holding that the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt (paras 1, 38-39).
Key holdings
- The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected wholesale merely because the prosecution treated him as hostile and cross-examined him (para 12).
- Res ipsa loquitur, as a doctrine shifting the burden of proof, cannot be invoked in criminal trials for causing injury or death by negligence (para 28).
- For criminal liability the negligence must be culpable or gross, not negligence based merely on an error of judgment (para 28).
- As an aid to permissive inferences under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, res ipsa loquitur is subject to all the conditions for conviction on circumstantial evidence (paras 29-30).
- A split-second error of judgment, made in the belief that it was the safest course, is not a sure index of negligence (para 34).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration [1976] 2 SCR 11 (as given in the SCR headnote of the print)
Even in a criminal prosecution, the evidence of a witness cross-examined and contradicted by the party calling him is not washed off the record; the judge decides whether he stands thoroughly discredited or can be believed in part.
- Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] 2 All E.R. 552; [1937] AC 576 (as given in the SCR headnote of the print)
Simple lack of care that would constitute civil liability is not enough for criminal liability; a very high degree of negligence is required.
- Horabin v. British Overseas Airways Corporation [1952] 2 QBD 1016 (as given in the SCR headnote of the print)
A grave error of judgment, particularly one apparent only in the light of after-events, is not wilful misconduct if the person thought he was acting in the best interests of the passengers.
View all precedents (5)
- Ballard v. North British Railway Co.
Warnings against magnifying res ipsa loquitur into a rule of substantive law and against applying remarks made in one class of cases indiscriminately to another.
- Moore v. R. Fox & Sons [1956] 1 Q.B. 596 (as given in the SCR headnote of the print)
English view that, where the maxim applies, the burden shifts to the defendant through a presumption of law; held not applicable in criminal trials.
