18 October 2024 - Legal Updates

1. In Motor Accident Claims, Preponderance of Probabilities Must be Applied, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that in Motor accident claim cases, the courts must apply the principle of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

While observing so, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the motor accident compensation claim of the kin of the bike rider who was killed in a road accident after a collision with a car coming in the opposite direction in an attempt to overtake a bus.

The Appellant’s claim petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the car was not involved in the accident, and the courts below have recorded the finding of non-involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as eyewitness.

It was presented as an eyewitness to the accident. He had seen the motorcycle overtaking the bus and at that time the car hit the motorcycle. The car forwarded a little and stopped and the injured was taken to the hospital in the same car which hit him. This witness has remained firm in the cross-examination.

Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra opined that “a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation.”

“There is an abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in the accident.” The court observed.

“In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident; otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar was not possible. The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken; the grill fitted above the front bumper is curved. With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident,” the court added.

Accordingly the court allowed the appeal and ordered as follows-

“In the light of the evidence on record, we set aside the finding of the courts below that the car was not involved in the accident, resultantly holding that the deceased dies as a result of accident involving the car insured with respondent no. 3 we, therefore set aside the judgment and order of the courts below and allow the claim petition to award compensation to the appellants at rs. 46,31,496 with the interest @ 9% per annum till the realisation of the payment, which shall be made within three months from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @12% per annum.

Case- Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. Vs. Mini Babu George & Ors.

2. [POCSO] Principal, Teacher Not Guilty Of Failure To Report Crime When Student’s Complaint Was Sent To Police The Very Next Day : Kerela High Court

The Kerela High Court has quashed the final report against a school principal and teacher for failing to report a sexual offence complaint received from a minor student on the same day. The court stated that it cannot be justified to say that there was a wilful omission since the complaint was lodged with the police and FIR was registered on the next day itself.

Justice A. Badharudeen stated that it was harsh to hold that the principle and teacher were liable since they reported the crime to the police on the next day.

“To be more explicit, on getting information regarding the crime, if the matter is reported to the police on the next day, it is harsh to hold that there was failure to inform/report the crime to the police so that offence under section 19r/w 21 of the police act would get attracted. If the omission is only for a day fastening criminal culpability on the accused for the said short omission could not be justified. Here, the crime was made known to the petitioners on 17/11/2022. But the same was not informed to the police by the petitioners on 17/11/2022, but informed on the very next day. Such view of the matter, I am of the view that willful omission on the part of the petitioners in informing the crime as alleged could not be found to rope the petitioners into his crime with the aid of section 19r/w 21 of the police act.”

In the facts of the case, a school principal and teacher who were arrayed as the 3rd and 4th accused have approached the High Court to quash the final report against them under section 19 read 21 of the POCSO Act for failing to report sexual offences or receiving complaint from a minor student.

Section 19 pertains to reporting offences and section 21 provides the punishment for failure to report a case.

As per the prosecution case, the first accused sexually assaulted and sexually harassed a minor student on November 16. It is stated that the victim complained about sexual offences to the principal on November 17 but the police were not informed on that day. It is alleged that the petitioners showed reluctance to inform the police on the same day and reported the sexual offence only on November 18, the next day after receiving the complaint.

The petitioners stated that there was no wilful reluctance on their part in reporting the offence to the police.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor stated that the principal showed some reluctance stating that the victim would have to face an ordeal since she would have to appear before the court many times. It was also submitted that the principal stated that the first also has a family and children and this would affect him also. It is stated that even the teacher showed hesitation in registering the FIR.

The court noted that failing to report to the police about the offence at least within 24 hours would attract an offence under section 19 of the POCSO Act. In the same breath, the court stated that it would be harsh the police were informed the next day itself. The court stated that making the petitioners liable for such a short omission could not be justified.

As such, the court quashed the final report against the principal and the teacher.

Case- XXX vs. State of Kerela