Driving at high speed alone doesn't prove driver was rash or negligent: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that merely driving a vehicle at a high speed does not automatically indicate rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver [Suseelan v State of Kerala & Another]..Justice CS Sudha noted that "high speed" or "over speed" is a relative concept and the prosecution must provide evidence to show what it means in the specific context of the case.She added that without proof, the court cannot say the driver was careless or negligent and the rule that “res ipsa loquitur” does not apply here.“Merely because the vehicle is being driven at a high speed does not show that the driver was rash or negligent by itself. “High speed” or “over speed” as it is often referred to, is a relative term. It is for the prosecution to bring on record materials to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case......Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur,” the Court observed..The single-judge made these observations while upholding the conviction and sentence of one Suseelan who was found guilty by the trial court of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part 2 of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with a fatal road accident.In May 2013, the accused allegedly drove his car under the influence of alcohol on the wrong side of the road resulting in a head-on collision with a motorcycle.Shaji Kumar, the rider of the motorcycle, died on the spot while his wife and son, who were riding pillion, sustained injuries.The trial court found him guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and proceeded to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of ₹25,000.He then approached the High Court..The accused argued that the case lacked evidence of high speed and reckless driving. He contended that the incident could be classified under Section 304A IPC, attributing it to mere negligence rather than knowledge or intent of causing harm.The defense also cited a lack of evidence to prove that the accused’s car was speeding..The Court observed that drunk driving cases with fatalities could not be reduced to mere negligence when the driver operates a vehicle on the wrong side of the road in a highly intoxicated state.The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra and emphasised that knowledge of the probable consequences of such actions is sufficient to meet the culpability requirements under Section 304 Part II IPC.“Where rash or negligent act is preceded with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC would be attracted. In a case where negligence or rashness is the cause of death and nothing more, Section 304A IPC would be attracted,” the Court observed..Therefore, the Court proceeded to uphold the conviction and sentence of the accused..However, the Court rejected the victims’ appeal for increased compensation, noting that a separate award had already been granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.“It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the accused that an amount of ₹30 lakhs has been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and so no further enhancement is called for. This submission on behalf of the accused is not disputed by the prosecution…I find no reason to enhance the amount of fine or compensation in the light of the substantive sentence awarded to him,” the single-judge notedAccordingly, both the criminal appeal by the accused as well as the appeal by the victims for enhanced compensation were dismissed by the court..[Read Judgment]