Pranav B Prem

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) is not a substantive rule of law or evidence in criminal cases but merely an aid in assessing evidence. The observation was made by Justice K. Babu on January 8, 2025, while acquitting an accused in a case involving rash and negligent driving.

Background of the Case

The accused, a private bus driver, was alleged to have driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in a collision with a KSRTC bus on July 6, 2001. The accident caused the death of two individuals and injuries to several passengers. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranny, convicted the accused under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, relying heavily on the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court, leading the accused to file a revision petition before the High Court.

Key Observations by the High Court

Justice K. Babu emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key points from the judgment include:

Proof of Scene Mahazar (Ext.P3): The Trial Court had relied on the scene mahazar (Ext.P3) to conclude that the private bus crossed to the wrong side of the road. However, the High Court noted that the Investigating Officer, who authored the mahazar, did not provide oral evidence to substantiate its contents. Citing precedents such as Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003) and Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. (1978), the Court held that the mere production of a document does not prove its contents. Oral evidence is essential to establish its admissibility.

Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Criminal Cases: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998), stating that res ipsa loquitur can be used only as a ratiocinative tool in criminal cases. It observed that criminality cannot be presumed merely based on circumstantial evidence or the application of this principle. The burden of proving guilt lies squarely on the prosecution, and the presumption of innocence must remain intact.

No Evidence of Rash or Negligent Driving: Witnesses presented by the prosecution testified that the vehicle was driven at high speed but failed to provide evidence that this amounted to rash or negligent behavior. The Court highlighted that "high speed" is a relative term, requiring specific contextual proof, as clarified by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Satish.

Lack of Substantive Evidence: The Court criticized the reliance on inadmissible documentary evidence and noted that none of the witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s claim of rash or negligent driving. It emphasized that the principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot replace the prosecution's obligation to prove all elements of the alleged offense.

Legal Analysis of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The doctrine, though widely applied in civil cases, has limited applicability in criminal law. As the High Court clarified, it serves only as a supportive tool to infer negligence in the absence of direct evidence but cannot form the sole basis for conviction. The maxim does not impose any legal presumption of criminality. As noted in the judgment, it is "a convenient label" and not a substantive rule.

The Court also referred to earlier decisions, such as Kesava Pillai v. State of Kerala (1985), which affirmed that res ipsa loquitur in criminal cases is merely an aid for evidence assessment and does not shift the burden of proof to the accused.

Verdict

The Kerala High Court set aside the Trial Court and Sessions Court judgments, citing a lack of admissible evidence and misapplication of the res ipsa loquitur principle. The accused was acquitted, with the Court reiterating the critical importance of adhering to evidentiary standards in criminal trials.

Cause Title: MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA

Case No: CRL.REV.PET NO. 2099 OF 2007

Date: January-08-2025

Bench: Justice K. Babu

[Read/Download order]