MATHEW ALEXANDER versus MOHAMMED SHAFI AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1083 · Decided: 13-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
MATHEW ALEXANDER
v.
MOHAMMED SHAFI AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2023)
JULY 13, 2023
[B. V. NAGARATHNA AND
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 482 – Quashing of
final report – Motor accident matter – Rash and negligent driving
– Appellant’s son was driving a car which collided with the gas
tanker lorry – Death of appellant’s son and five others travelling in
the car – Claim petition by the respondent no. 1 and the legal
representative of the deceased passengers – Claim petition also filed
by the appellant against the driver and the insurer of the tanker
lorry, and against the owner – FIR against the appellant’s son u/s.
279 and 304 A, however, abatement of charges against him on his
death – Submission of the final report by police that the incident
was an unavoidable accident, not attributable to negligence on the
part of the appellant’s son – Two years later, petition u/s. 482 by the
respondent no. 1 for quashing of the final report – High Court
quashed the final report – On appeal, held : Opinions expressed by
the High Court which are in the nature of findings while considering
the correctness of the final report and thereby quashing the same
was, not a correct and proper approach adopted by the High Court
– Order passed by the High Court is set aside – Penal Code, 1860
– ss. 279, 304 A.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Motor accident – Claim for
compensation – Negligence – Burden of proof – Held : Motor
accident matter has to be considered on the basis of preponderance
of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable
doubt – On facts, in a claim petition by the appellant alleging
negligence on part of the driver of the tanker lorry and the pick up
van in causing the accident resulting in the death of his son and
five others travelling with him, alleged negligence on the part of
the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident
has to be proved – It was for the appellant to establish negligence
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1083 : 2023 INSC 621
1083
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry – Opinion in the final
report that the incident was an unavoidable accident, not attributable
to negligence on the part of the appellant’s son, would not have a
bearing on the petition – In the claim petitions filed by the dependents
of the other deceased passengers, they have to similarly establish
the negligence in accordance with law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court made observations which are
in the nature of findings while considering the correctness or
otherwise of the final report impugned before the High Court.
Further, the observations of the High Court to the effect that the
car driven by the appellant’s son, was being driven rashly; that
the car had gone astray to the wrong side; that the possibility
that the driver of the car had driven the car after consuming
alcohol cannot be ruled out; that rashness and negligence on the
part of the driver of the car is patent and that this is a clear case
in which the principle of res ispa loquitor applies, are in the nature
of findings which were wholly unnecessary to be made while
considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report
submitted on further investigation of the case. It is on the basis
of the said observations which are in the nature of findings that
the High Court has quashed the report made pursuant to further
investigation by opining that the incident is attributable to the
rash and negligent driving of the Alto car. The opinions expressed
which are in the nature of findings while considering the
correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on a further
investigation of the case and thereby quashing the same is, not a
correct and proper approach adopted by the High Court. Hence,
the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.
[Para 8][1088-D-H; 1089-A]
1.2. Insofar as the claim petition filed by the appellant is
concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the
tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be
proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis
of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim
petitions filed by the appellant or other claimants to let in their
respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.