High Court dismissed leave petition under Section 378 CrPC. Court held prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence beyond doubt. Acquittal of respondent for rash driving under Sections 279/337 IPC upheld.
Leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with MS. Divya Yadav, Adv. SI Rahul Kumar, PSModel Town
versus MS. SHALINI JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satyendra Mishra & Mr. Praveen Seera, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 06.05.2025 CRL.L.P. 370/2022
CRL.L.P. 370/2022
Page 1 of 8
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
Page 2 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
the accident took place. He submits that the victim/PW-3 deposed that the respondent, while driving her car in a rash and negligent manner, had hit his motorcycle from behind with great force thereby causing simple injuries to him. He submits that minor inconsistencies are not fatal to the case of the prosecution and ought to be ignored. He consequently submits that the acquittal of the respondent is manifestly erroneous and perverse and is liable to be set aside.
Analysis
“19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal “shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court”. It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under subsection (3) of Section 378 of the Code. 20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside. 21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be allowed by the appellate
Page 3 of 8
CRL.L.P. 370/2022
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court could not be said to be “perverse” and, hence, no leave should be granted.
xxx
24. We may hasten to clarify that we may not be understood to have laid down an inviolable rule that no leave should be refused by the appellate court against an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. We only state that in such cases, the appellate court must consider the relevant material, sworn testimonies of prosecution witnesses and record reasons why leave sought by the State should not be granted and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and reasons (may be in brief) in support of such view are recorded, the order of the court may not be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on record discloses deeper scrutiny and reappreciation, review or reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as sought and decide the appeal on merits. In the case on hand, the High Court, with respect, did neither. In the opinion of the High Court, the case did not require grant of leave. But it also failed to record reasons for refusal of such leave.”
(emphasis supplied)
CRL.L.P. 370/2022
Page 4 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
vehicle, however, the same had hit him with a great force. Upon being shown certain photographs marked as A, B and C, the victim/PW-3 stated that he could not identify whether the car shown in such photographs were those of the offending vehicle or not.
“9. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.”
“12. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must
CRL.L.P. 370/2022
Page 5 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to “rash and negligent driving” within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words “manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life”. The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted.
13. “Negligence” means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
stated that the car being driven by the respondent hit him from behind with great force. However, as it apparent from the testimony of PW-3, he could not tell whether the respondent was driving her car at a high speed or not. PW-3 further did not state that the respondent was driving her car in a rash or negligent manner. He merely stated that the car being driven by the respondent had hit him from behind with great force as a consequence of which he fell down. He further stated that he was driving his motorcycle at a speed of 40 km/hour. As rightly appreciated by the learned MM, while the speed at which the respondent was driving her car could not be ascertained, if the car was even being driven by the respondent at a low speed and was to hit the motorcycle, the same would cause sufficient impact to lead the motorcyclist to lose balance and fall down. The same however does not establish that the respondent was driving her car in a rash or negligent manner.
Page 7 of 8
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
was driving her vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. 18. Upon a consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, and the same cannot be faulted with. This Court is of the opinion that the State has not been able to establish a prima facie case in its favour and no arguable ground has been raised to accede to the State’s request to grant leave to appeal in the present case.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
MAY 6, 2025
Page 8 of 8
CRL.L.P. 370/2022
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/06/2025 at 10:57:27
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal against an acquittal for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279/337 IPC.
Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of rash or negligent driving endangering life.
Whether the victim's testimony and lack of eyewitnesses establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh PoyarekarExplained¶22
State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar : (2008) 9 SCC 475 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P.Explained¶38
Mohd. Aynuddin v. State of A.P. : (2000) 7 SCC 72 · Who else cites this
Ravi Kapur v. State of RajasthanExplained¶44
Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan : (2012) 9 SCC 284 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State (NCT of Delhi)
Ms. Shalini Jain
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
