Delhi HC Convicts Truck Driver in Child Death Case, Applies Res Ipsa Loquitur

The Delhi High Court has convicted a truck driver for causing the death of a two year old child in a road accident, holding that the circumstances of the incident clearly pointed to negligence and warranted application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna allowed an appeal filed by the State and set aside a trial court judgment dated 24.12.2019, which had acquitted the accused, Shiv Shankar, of offences under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

The case relates to a tragic incident that occurred on 05.12.2012, when a two-year-old child, Veer also known as Aditya, was run over by a TATA Ace truck allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The child was immediately rushed to a hospital by his mother and neighbours but was declared dead.

During the investigation, the police recorded statements of several witnesses, including the child’s father, Ashok Kumar. He stated that he had witnessed the accident and saw the truck run over his son, who was sitting on the roadside at the time.

The owner of the vehicle also confirmed that the truck was being driven by the accused at the relevant time.

Despite this evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to conclusively establish rash or negligent driving.

Challenging the acquittal, the State approached the High Court, arguing that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and had overlooked material circumstances indicating negligence.

The bench examined the legal requirements for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, noting that the prosecution must establish that the accused was driving in a rash or negligent manner and that such conduct directly caused the death.

Upon analyzing the evidence, the Court found that the accused had been apprehended at the spot along with the offending vehicle. It also noted that in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused had admitted that the child came under the vehicle when he started it.

“The correctness of the Site Plan, Ex.PW1/F, has not been challenged either in the cross-examination of PW-1 at whose instance it was prepared, or PW-7, ASI Omender, who had prepared it and indicated the place of accident and the spot where truck was found parked, after the accident. It is actually a case of res ipsa loquitor, where the circumstances itself speak of negligence of the respondent”, the Court observed.

The Court placed significant reliance on the site plan prepared during the investigation, which indicated that the truck had deviated from the main road and moved towards the roadside area where the child was sitting.

The bench observed that this deviation, coupled with the resulting accident, pointed towards negligent conduct on the part of the driver.

“It is actually a case of res ipsa loquitur, where the circumstances itself speak of negligence of the respondent…(it) is very much applicable in the present case, when the nature of accident and attending circumstances would reasonably lead to the conclusion that in absence of negligence, the accident would not have occurred,” the Court observed.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court explained, applies in situations where the nature of the accident itself indicates negligence, even if there is no direct evidence explaining exactly how the incident occurred.

“The correctness of the Site Plan, Ex.PW1/F, has not been challenged either in the cross-examination of PW-1 at whose instance it was prepared, or PW-7, ASI Omender, who had prepared it and indicated the place of accident and the spot where truck was found parked, after the accident. It is actually a case of res ipsa loquitor, where the circumstances itself speak of negligence of the respondent”, the Court added

The Court also clarified that the principle serves a dual purpose. It applies in cases where the accident is caused by negligence attributable to the opposite party, and also where the complainant can prove that an accident occurred but cannot fully establish the exact manner in which it happened.

The bench further held that the trial court had erred in discarding the testimony of the child’s father merely on the basis of minor inconsistencies.

It noted that his presence at the spot was corroborated by other evidence and that his testimony could not be rejected on trivial discrepancies.

In view of these findings, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

“It had been rightly contended on behalf of the Prosecution that it is a clear cut case not only of negligence, which is brought forth by the testimony of the witnesses but also from the Site Plan, Ex.PW1/F which depicts the manner which itself speaks of the negligence on the part of the Respondent. Pertinently, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the Respondent, also does not refute the manner on accident, which blatantly establishes the negligence of the respondent”, the Court thus ruled.

Accordingly, it set aside the acquittal and convicted Shiv Shankar for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

The matter has now been listed for hearing on the question of sentence on April 1.

Case Title: State NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Judgement: 16.03.2026