The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of Udhayakumar in a fatal road accident case, holding that merely driving a vehicle at high speed cannot, by itself, establish rashness or negligence. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant’s driving caused the accident.
Justice G. Arul Murugan delivered the judgment on September 16, 2026, in CRL A No. 512 of 2022.
Background
The case arose from an accident on November 3, 2014, at around 7:00 a.m. on the Durgabai Deshmukh Flyover in Chennai. According to the prosecution, a private bus driven by the appellant allegedly travelled at high speed and hit an autorickshaw moving ahead. The autorickshaw driver, aged about 60, suffered injuries and later died at the hospital.
The Trial Court had initially considered charges under Sections 304(ii) and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, it found that the charges under Section 304(ii) IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act were not proved. It nevertheless convicted the appellant under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to six months and one year of simple imprisonment respectively, with the sentences running concurrently.
Before the High Court, the appellant argued that there was no reliable evidence showing rash or negligent driving. His counsel also pointed out that merely driving at high speed could not satisfy the legal requirement for conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.
The State, however, relied on the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s reports, arguing that the accident resulted from the appellant’s driving.
The High Court closely examined the testimony. PW1 had stated that he was travelling behind the bus but admitted during cross-examination that he had not noticed which side of the road the autorickshaw was being driven on. The Court noted that this meant PW1 could not properly observe the manner in which the autorickshaw was being driven immediately before the collision.
PW2 stated that the bus came from behind, overtook him and hit the autorickshaw. However, the Court noted that PW2 did not specifically describe the bus as being driven rashly or negligently. It also found inconsistencies between the accounts of PW1 and PW2.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that speed alone cannot establish criminal negligence.
“Driving at high speed alone by itself does not constitute ‘Rashness’ or ‘negligence’ but the rash or negligent act of the accused that resulted in the accident, has to be independently established by the prosecution.”
The Court further held that the Trial Court had proceeded on the assumption that because the bus was travelling on a one-way bridge, its high speed itself indicated negligence. The High Court found that such an inference could not be sustained in law.
After reappraising the oral and documentary evidence, Justice G. Arul Murugan held that there was no independent evidence establishing rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court therefore allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted Udhayakumar of all the charges. It also directed that any bail bond stand cancelled and that any fine paid be refunded.
Case Details:
Case Title: Udhayakumar v. State
Case Number: CRL A No. 512 of 2022
Judge: Justice G. Arul Murugan
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
