Motor Accident Trials in Delhi — Criminal Prosecution for Rash & Negligent Driving

They are two separate proceedings. The MACT claim is a civil proceeding for monetary compensation, decided on the balance of probabilities. The criminal case is the State prosecuting the driver for the offence (now under the BNS — Sections 281, 125, 106), decided on proof beyond reasonable doubt. They run independently; an acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically defeat the compensation claim, though a conviction can strengthen the negligence finding before the Tribunal.

Since 1 July 2024, causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide is punishable under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (up to 5 years and fine) — the successor to Section 304A IPC. If the driver flees without reporting, Section 106(2) (up to 10 years) is the designated provision, but it is presently kept in abeyance and not enforced. Where the driver acted with knowledge that death was likely, the charge can be elevated to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 BNS.

The ordinary motor-accident offences — rash driving under Section 281 BNS and causing death by negligence under Section 106(1) — are bailable. Because they carry imprisonment of up to seven years, the police are not to arrest automatically: under Section 35 BNSS and the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar, the officer must record reasons and may instead issue a notice of appearance. Bail is generally available, and anticipatory bail may be sought where arrest is apprehended.

The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was driving the offending vehicle, that the driving was rash or negligent, and that this was the direct and proximate cause of the death or injury. As held in Jacob Mathew, the negligence must be of a high (gross) degree for criminal liability, and the case cannot be decided solely by applying res ipsa loquitur — the burden remains on the prosecution.

No. Speed is only one circumstance. As explained in Ravi Kapur, rashness can exist even at a slow speed if the driving is reckless, and a bald assertion of “high speed” without evidence of the manner of driving does not by itself establish rashness or negligence. The court looks at the road, traffic, manner of overtaking, and the whole sequence of events.

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is separately punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Where intoxication leads to a fatal accident with knowledge of likely consequences, the courts have treated it as going beyond ordinary negligence — in Alister Anthony Pareira the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC, now Section 105 BNS) in such circumstances.

In appropriate cases — for example where the parties have settled the civil aspect and the dispute is essentially private, or where the allegations do not disclose an offence — the High Court may quash the FIR or proceedings under Section 528 BNSS (the successor to Section 482 CrPC). However, courts are cautious in rash-driving death cases because the offence has a public dimension and is not purely private.

It depends on the provision and the facts. Rash driving (S.281) carries up to 6 months; grievous hurt by a rash act (S.125(b)) up to 3 years; death by negligence (S.106(1)) up to 5 years. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed deterrence in such cases (Dalbir Singh, Saurabh Bakshi, Guru Basavaraj) and has set aside unduly lenient sentences (Dil Bahadur, 2023). Probation is not granted as a matter of course in death cases.

Yes. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, electronic records — CCTV footage, FasTag logs, GPS data and digital photographs — are admissible subject to the conditions in Sections 61–63 BSA. Such evidence is increasingly used to establish the presence, identity and manner of driving of the offending vehicle. It is advisable to request preservation of this data early, before it is overwritten.

Ensure the FIR accurately records the vehicle number, manner of accident and witnesses; obtain a copy of the FIR and MLC; preserve any CCTV/FasTag evidence; and keep the criminal record (FIR, chargesheet, conviction, if any) to support the MACT claim. The family can also seek victim compensation under Section 395/396 BNSS. For personalised guidance on a specific accident, an appointment may be sought from the firm.