Holding

The Court held that hostile prosecution witnesses' testimony cannot be summarily rejected and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, being a tort principle, does not shift the burden of proof in criminal cases, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

Summary

Syad Akbar, a bus driver, was convicted under Section 304A IPC for the death of a four‑year‑old girl who was struck when he swerved his bus to avoid her. The prosecution’s eye‑witnesses were treated as hostile and their testimony was discarded by the trial court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that hostile witnesses’ evidence cannot be rejected wholesale and must be assessed for credibility. It further clarified that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur belongs to tort law and cannot be used to shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial. Since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver’s act amounted to culpable negligence, the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted.

Issues considered

Whether the lower courts were justified in discarding the testimony of eye‑witnesses merely because they were treated as hostile by the prosecution.
Whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in criminal proceedings and can be invoked to presume rash or negligent driving.

Legislation cited

Subjects

res ipsa loquiturhostile witnessburden of proofnegligenceSection 304A IPCbus accidentacquittalIndian Evidence Act

Judgment

95

SYAD AKBAR A
• v•
STATE OF KARNATAKA
July 25, 1979
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] B

Evidence Act-Res ipsa loquitur-If applicable in criminal trials-Appellani
driving a bus 011 a narrow road with deep ditches on both sides-A child suddenly
atte1npts to cross the road-Bus swerved to riglzt-Child crushed to death-
Prosecution declared eye witness hostile-Driver-If could be held negligent.

Hostile witnesses-Cross-examined by prosecution-Their evidence-If could c
be treated as washed off the record.

The appellant, who was a driver of a bus, was driving the vehicle by a
road which ran through a< village. On either side of the road there were deep
ditches. A n101her who \\'as going from the village on the left side of the road
to the fields on the right, was being followed at some distance by her daughter
(the deceased), a girl of four years. Before crossing the road the mother D
stopped on the left side and remonstrated with the girl to go home. Tl.ten
crossing the road at that point the mother descended on the right side of the
road a-nd went out of sight, In the meantime the bus had slowed down
because a few feet away it had to cross a narrow bridge. The child, which
by then reached the left side of the road, seemed to be in two minds whether
to cross the 1oad or go back. She, however, dashed across the road with a
suddenness. The driver blew tlte horn and to save the chlid from accident E
swerved the vehicle to the right. But the child by then crtn1e under the left
front \Vheel and was crushed to death.

The appellant's defence was that the accident could not be avoided in the
circumstances of the case despite the best care taken by hiJn to avoid it.

Alleging that there were considerable discrepancies in the statements of the F
• ,? eye.witnesses, between what they stated to the police and what they stated at
the trial, the prosecution attempted to impeach their credit and treated all of
them as hostile.

• The Sessions !udge agreed with the view of the trial court about the un-
• reliability of t'!J.e eye-witnesses, mainly because they had been treated 'hostile'
and cross-examined by the prosecution. He concluded that even if the evidence G
of the eye·witnesses, who had been treated by the prosecution as hostile, was
discarded in its entirety, then also on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the
circun1stance and nature of the accident itself, was sufficient to hold that the
acc.ident was clue to rash and negligent driving by the accused.

Thf: fligh Court af£rn1ed the view of the Sessions Judge that the principle
of rt~t ipsa loquitur \\'as attra<:ted to the facts of the case. H
In appeaJ to this Court the two questions for consideration were : (i)
whether the courts below were right in discarding the evidence of the eye wit-
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.
f
A nesses on the ground that they were treated hostile by the proseculion an..:l.t
cross-examined; and (ii) whether the principle res ipsa loquitur was applicable
in criminal proceedings and, if so, whether it could be invoked in the circum- •
stances of the caie to presume rashness and negligence. on the appellant's part.

Allowing the· appeal.
HELD : 1. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected
B wholesale merely on the ground that the prosecution had dubbed the111 hostile
and had cross-exan1ined them. Even in a criminal prosecution when a \vitness
is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party
calling hin1, his evidence ca·nnot be~ as a matter of Jaw, treated as wa::;hcd
off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact tu consider in each case
whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness
stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his.
c testimony. If, in a. given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is·
impugned and in the process the witness stands totally discredited, the Judge.
should as a matter of prudence discard his evidence in toto. [101F-H]

Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration [1976] 2 S.C.R. 11, followed.
In the instant case the courts belov;' were not justified in brushing asid~·
D the testimony of the witnesses, The eye ·witnesse~ \'i'ere only asked omnibus
questions r:nd were not contradicted on material f;~cts a-nd their credit with
regard to their testimony in examination-in-chief had not been shaken in cross-
examiaation.

2. (a) Res ipsa loquitur, which is more of a convenient label to describe·
certain peculiar fact-situations, rather than an abstract legal doctrine, belongs,
E in reality, to the la\v of torts. Evetn in actions in torts, as a rule, it is for
the plaintiff to prove that the injury occurred due to the negligence of the
defendant, and the mere fact that an accident has occurred the cause of i;;·hich
is unknown, is not, evidence of negligence. But the peculiar circun1st<::nces
constituting the event or accident in a particular ca5e may theniselves proclaim
negligence of somebody as cause of the accident. Satisfaction of this condition
alone is not sufficient for res ipsa to come into play, and it has to be further
F satisfied tha-t the event which caused the accident was within the defendant's
coritrol. Thus, the two-fold requirement for the application of the maxim i1
that the res must not only bespeak negligence but pin it on the defendant.
[1038-E]

(b) (i) There are h~:o lines of approach in regard to the ;z.ppJir.:ation and
effect 0f the maxim, rt'5 ipsa foquitur. According to the first, where the mn.xim ..
G applie:i;, it operates ~ an exception to the general rule that the burden of proof
of the alleged negligence is, in the first instance, oa the plaintiff. In this view,
if the Nature of an Oi.c<;ident is such that the mere nappenini of it is evidence
of negligence, the burden shifts or is in the first 1nstance on the defendant to
disprove his liability. Such shifting or casting of the burden on the defendant
is on account of a presurnption of law arising against the defendant front the.
constituent circumstances of the accident itself, which bespeak negligence of the:
H defendant. [105F; 106A-B]

M~•re v. R. Fox & Son!, [1956] I Q.B. 596; Halsbury's Laws of England,
Vol. 28, 3rd Edn., referred to.
SYAD AKBAR V. KARNATAKA 97

' (ii) Acco1ding to the other line of approach res ipsa loquitur is not a special Ar.
rule of ~ubstantive law; but only an a·id in the evaluation of evidence, a means
of e::.timating logical probability from thei circumstances of the accidcRt. In
•
.. this view, res ipsa does not require the raising of any presumptio11. Cjf la\v
which must shift the onus on to the defendant. It only allow~ the drav,'ing:
of a permissive inference of fact as distinguished from a mandatory presump·
tion, having regard to the totality of the circunlStances and the probabilitfas cf
the case. [106 C-D] B'·

( c) The first line of approa~h cannot be invoked in the trial of crin1iual
cases \vhere the accused stands chairged for causing injury or death by a
nerligent or rash act. The primary reasons for non·application of res fp~a
foq11itur as an abstiact doctrine to criminal trials, are: firstly, in a crirninal
tria·I the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the
charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution; :iiiecondly, while C'.
in civil proceedings a mere preponderance of probability is 5ufficient to establish
a fact in issue, it is not so in criminal proceedings wherein the presumption '
of guilt must amount to such ~ moral certainty as convinces the mind of the
court, as a. reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt. \Vhere negligence
is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be e,stabli~he<l by
thC prosecution must be culpable or gross and not negligence merely ba~ed
upon an error of judgment. [107A-B] I>'

Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1937] 2 All. E.R . .S52: [1937]
AC 576, referred to

--t (d) (i) Und\!rstood in the broad, general sense as by the other line of
approach-.1nly as a convenient ratiocinative aid in assessment of evidence a.nd
in drawing permissive inferences under s. 114, Evidence Act, re.s ipsa loquitur E-
can be usefully invoked in the trial of criminal cases wherein the negligence·
of the accused is a fact in issue. Such functional use vf the n1axim will not
conflict with the provisions and principles of the Evidence Act, peculiar to
criminal jurisprudence. [107G]

(ii). However such sin1plified and pragmatic application of the notion of
F
. ,.
)
re.~ ipsa loquitur as a part of the general nlode of inf~rring a fact in issue
fron1 another circumstantial fact, is subject to all the conditions the satisfa-ction
of which is essential before an accused can be convicted on the basi.5 of circum-
stantial evidence alone. These conditions are : (i) All the circumstances
including the objcclive circumstance.s constituting the accident, must be finnly
esta·hlishcd; (ii) those circumstances must be of a determinative' tendency pointing
unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, and (iii) the circurr1~tances c;;hould
G:
make the chain so complete that they cannot reasonably raise any other hypo-
thesis save that of the guilt of the accused. [108A-B]

In the instant case, the n1a·xim could have no application. The circumstance
of taking the bus suddenly to the extreme right of the road, which was the
reascn given by th~ courts below for invoking the maxim, Jid not bespeak in
clear and unambiguous vo-ice, negligence on the appellant's part to exercise due
care and conhol. ?\Ioreover, the appellant ga·ve a reasonable and convincing
explanation of his conduct in swerving the vehicle to the right aed his version,
\Vas fully supported by four prosecution witnesses.
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] l S.C.R.

A The mother firmly told the child to return home and then crossed the road
(

and descended the deep ditch on the right side. The child ·~:as undecided for
a while but then, suddenly ran across the road. The appellant who had slowed
down the vehicle earlier, suddenly saw the child at a short distance ahead of the
bus. It was difficult for him to judge with any degree of accuracy whether
.•
the child ,..,ould go back or da~h forward. The question for the driver at
that point of time was ·whether to swerve to the left or to the right. The
B road was narrow \Vilh deep ditches on both sides. To swerve to the extreme
left \\'otild have nieant taking as much risk of rolling the bus down the ditch
as swerving it to the extreme right. He could not, without incurring far greater
risk to many in the bus, take the vehicle off-course further to the right beyond
the point he did. Had the bus gone further than it Jid, towards the right,
it would haove met \Vith a much bigger disaster. His calculations went wrong
and he failed in his attempt to avoid the accident. Clearly, th'erefore, the
c accident occ11Trt<l not on account of his negligence but due to an error of
judg1nent in the circumstances of the situation. An error of judgment of this
kind v,:hich con1es to Jight only on post-accident reflection, is not a true int.I.ex
of negligence. A grave error of judgment, 'particularly one apparent oo :::;uch
in the Jight of after-events, is not negligence of the kind contemplated in
Section 304-A Penal Code, if the person responsible thought that he was actiu~
in the best interests of the passengers and of the vehicle he was driving. llere,
D aJJ happened in a fraction of ai moment. Even if the worst was assurned
against 1he appeliant, the highest that could be said was that a misjudgtnent
on his part too sligbl to be branded as cu1pab1e negligence could well account
for the a<:cident rcsultirig in the death of the child.
llorabin v. British Overseas Air1vays Corporation, [1952] 2 QBD 1016;
referred to.
E In the circumstances, the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellant had caused the death of the child by negligent or rash
driving. [lJOG]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 456 of
1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated '( ..
22'-3-1978 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Revision Pe!Ition i
No. 357/77.
S. s. Javali, B. P. Singh and A. K. Srivastava for the Appellant.
M. Veerappa and J. R. Dass for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA, J. By a short order we had allowed this appeal by
special leave directed against a judgment, dated March 22, 1978, of
the High Court of Karnataka, and acquitted the appellant. We now
give our reasons in support of that Order :
On March 18, 1974 at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant was driving
a passenger bus No. MYM-5859 on Dharampura-Hiriyur Road towards
SYAD AKBAR v. KARNATAKA (Sarkar/a, I.) 99

Hiriyur. When the bus reached at a place from where a kacha path
' bifurcates for villages Hariyabbe, a girl named Gundamma, aged 4
years, ran across the road. The appellant swerved the vehicle towards
• the extreme right side of the road. In spite of it, the child was hit
and died at the spot. A complaint was lodged by the Patel of the
village, Gunde Gowda, at Hariyabbe Police Station. The Station House
Officer (P.W. 7) after registering a case, reached the spot and sent R
the dead body of the child for post-mortem examination, and recorded
the statements of witnesses, including some of the passengers in the
Bus.
On these facts, the appellant was sent up for trial before the Judicial
Magistrate, I st Class, Chitradurga, who convicted him under Section C
304A of the !ndian Penal Code and sentenced him to six months'
simple imprisortment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to one
month's imprisonment.
At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The parents
of the deceased child were also examined, but they were admittedly D
not eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 2, a passer-by, and P.W. 5,
P.W. 6 and P.W. 9, who were passengers in the bus at the material
time, were examined as eye-witnesses by the prosecution.

The substance of the story that emerges from the testimony of fhese
eye-witnesses, taken as a whole, was that at the material time the E
accused was driving the bus slowly as there was a narrow bridge 30
feet ahead. The mother (P.W. 4) came from the habitation of the
village to go le the field across the road at some distance, where her
husband was working. The ill-fated child was following the mother.
Before crossing the road, the mother asked the child not to come after
her but to return home, but, when the mother had crossed the road F
and descended bto the deep ditch on the other side, the child crying
..) j
'Amman' suddenly dashed across the road to join her mother. The
accused in order io save the child swerved the vehicle to tlie extreme
right side of the mad. According to the eye-witnesses, excepting one,
the accused blew the horn, also. But the child was caught under tlie
lefi front wheel of the vehicle and was crushed to death. It was G
• further evident from the statement of G. Ramakrishnappa (P.W. 5)
that if the appellant had taken the bus beyond the point where the
chiid was hit, the bus would have fallen into the deep ditch, along
with the passengers.
The Public Prosecutor, however, treated all the four eye-witnesses ff
as hostile, and cross-examined them to impeach their credit, with the
permission of the Court. The Public Prosecutor did not contradict
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] J S.C.R.

them with their Police Statements with regard 1o the facts that the
vehicle was coming slowly; that the child came suddenly on the road (

and that the driver had swerved the vehicle towards the extreme rigllt
to save her, but was unable to do so. The only portion of the Police •
statements of the eye-witnesses, with which they were specifically
confronted, was that before the Police they had stated that the accident
took place due to the negligence of the accused, while at the trial they
were saying something to the contrary.

During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant
stated that he was driving the vehicle slowly, and the child came on
the road from the lefl, all of a sudden, to cross it; that in order to
c avoid a collision with the child, he immediately swerved the vehicle
towards the right side of the road, but he failed to save the child.
Thus the defence plea was that the accident could not be avoided in
the circumstances, in spite of the care taken. The trial court held
that the eye-witnesses were not speaking the truth.
In appeal, the Sessions Judge agreed with the trial conrt about
the unreliability of the eye-witnesses. In spite of it, he upheld the
conviction with these observations :
"This is a case where the principle res ipsa loquitur
should be invoked because the passengers in the bus are not
E giving out the truth and their evidence is made highly
improbable .... Though P.W. 2 has been treated hnstile by
the prosecution, the fact that the child was follov;ing the
mother finds corroboration in their (P.W. 2 and P.W. 4)
evidence. So, now, if the driver of the vehicle could see
the :nother ar.d child coming from village and he has da,hed
against the child on the extreme right side of the road on
the _kutcha portion, it is suggestive of rash and negligent
driving. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 5, 6 and 9 who have
been treated hostile by the prosecution even though discarded
in entirety still it must be held that the material on the record
is sufficient to hold that the accused was both rash and negli-
gent in driving the vehicle at that point."·
In Revision, the High Court also endorsed the view taken by the
Sessions Judge that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was attracted to
the facts of the case.
II Thus, two qu~stions arise for consideration; First whether the courts
below were right in discarding entirely the evidence of the said eye-
witnesses merely on the ground that they were treated as hostile by
SYAD AKBAR v. KARNATAKA (Sarkaria, !.) 101

·the prosecution und cross-examined. Second, whether the principle A
.of res ipsa loquitur 1s applicable in criminal proceedings. If so, co,1Jd
it be invoked in the circumstances of the case in favour cf the prosecu-
iion to presume rashness and negligence on the part of the accused?
•
In regard to the first question, it may be noted that the police
·statements of the eye-witnesses were not pnt specifically, bit by bit to 8
:them by the prosecution, in cross-examination. Only an omnibus
.question was asked as to whether they had stated before the police
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. This
was, at best, a matter of inference to be drawn by the Court The
-witnesses were not contradicted with regard to material facts which
were the product of their direct sensory perception. For instance, c
iheir version with regard to the speed of the vehicle, the blowing or
horn, the child rmming across the road and sudden swerving of the
vehicle to the right in an attempt to save the child, etc., was not •
impeached by the prosecution in cross-examination. In short, the.
credit of these w;1rKsses with regard to the substratum of their
D
.examination-in-chief had not been shaken in cross-examination by the
prosecution.
As a legal preposition, it is now settled by the decisions of this
Court, that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected
wholesale, merely on the ground that the prosecution had dubbed him
'hostile' and had cross-examined him. We need say no, more than E
·reiterate what this Court said on this point in Sat Paul v. Delhi
Administration(') :
"Everi in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-
exarnined and contradicted with the leave of the Court, by
the party calliug him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of F
Ia·;,:, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for
the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result
of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness
stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard
to a part cf bis testimony. If the Judge finds that in the
process, the credit of the witness has not been completely G
.. shaken, he may, after reading and considering tJ1e evidence
of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept,
in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part
of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act
upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of
the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness B
(1) [1976] 2 SCR. 1J.
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] J S.C.R.

A stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as
a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto."
f
The instant case is not one where the whole of the testimony of
these witnesses was impugned in cross-examination by the prosecution.
Their credit, on material points, was hardly shaken. The courts below, •
B therefore, were not justified in brushing aside their testimony.
Coming to the second question, it may be observed that res ipsa
loquitur (thing speaks for itself) is a principle which, in reality, belongs
to the law of torts.
The jurisprudential status and functional utility of res ipsa loquitur
c have been the subject of much debate. In Ballard v North British
Railway Co.,( 1) Lord Shaw said, nobody would have called it a prin-
ciple if it had not been in Latin. While warning against the tendency
to magnify this cxprec,sion into a rule of substantive htw, the Noble
Lord conceded that tlus Latin phrase "simply has place in that scheme
."'"'
of, and search for, causation upon which the mind sets itself working''.
In the same case, Lord Dunedan emphasised : "It is not safe to take
the remarks which have been made as to the principle of res ipsa loquitur
in one class of cases and apply them indiscriminately to another class".
No less an authority than the authors of "Salmond on the Law of
Torts", (15th Edn. by R. F. Hanston, p. 310) have suggested not to
E treat this maxim as a special rule of evidence. This is what they
say:
"Much of the confusion is due to a failure to 1ppre~iate
•·
that cases where res ipsa loquitur applies may van enN-
mously in the strength, significance and cogency of the res
proved .... Looked at in this light, it is not easy to see why
F the maxim should be treated as a special part of the law of
evidence."
Lord Dunedan, in Ballard's case, (supra) thought it no more ~
rule of evidence than a means of shifting the onus to prove negligence.
Lord Atkin in Mc Gowan v. Stott( 2 ) treated it as equivalent to a
G statement that on the facts in evidence the plaintiff has satisfied the
burden of proof enough to shift it on to the defendant.
John G. Flem;ng (in bis 'Law of Torts', 5th Edn., page 302)
thinks it as "no more than a convenient label to describe situations
where, notwithstanding the plaintiff's inability to establish the exact ..
H cause of the accident, the fact of the accident by itself is sufficient, in
(!} [1923] Sessions Cases (H.L) 43.
(2) (19231 99 L.J. (K.B.) 357 at p. 360.
SYAD AKBAR v. KARNATAKA (Sarkaria, l.) 103

the absence of an ei>planation, to justify the conclusion that most A
~
probably the defendant was negligent and that his negligenc0 caused
the injury".
I '
~
As a rule, mere proof that an event has happened or an accident
,. has occurred, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of negli-
B
gence. But the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or acci-
dent, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant, clear
~ ,' and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of
the event or accident. It is to such cases that the maxim res ipsa
/oquitur may apply, if the cause of the accident is unknown and no
reasonable explanation as to the cause is coming forth from the defen-
dant. To emphasise the point, it may be reiterated, that in such cases,
c
the event or acciclent must be of a kind which does not happen in
the mdinary course of things if those who have the management and
control use due care. But, according to some decisions, satisfaction
of this condition alone is not sufficient for res ipsa to come into play
and it boas to be further satisfied that the event which caused the acci- D
dent was within the defendant's control. The reason for this second
requirement is 1hat wl1ere the defendant has control of the thing caused
the injury, he is in a better position than the plaintiff to explain how
the ~ccident occurred. Instances of such special kind of accidents
which "tell their own story" of being off-springs of negligence, are
furnished by cases, such as where a motor vehicle mounts or projects E
-r over a pavement and hurts somebody there or travelling in the vehicle;
one car ramming another from behind, or even a head-on-collision on
~ the wrong side of the road. Seelper Lord Normand in Barkway v.
• South Wales Transport Co.('); Cream v. Smith( 2 ) and Richlev v .
• Fanll(').
F
Th•1s. for the application of the maxim res ipsa loquitur "no less
important a requirement is that the res must not only be speak negli-
• )." gence, but pin it on the defendant."

"It is now to be seen, how does res ipsa loquitur fit in with the
G
conceptual pattern of the Indian Evidence Act. Under the Act, the
general mle is that the burden of proving negligence as cause of
the accident, lies on the party who alle~s it. But that party can take
advantage of presumptions which may be available to him, to lighten
th.at burden. Presumptions are of three types :
(I) [1950j I All. E.R. 392 at 399. B
(2) [1961] 8 All. E.R. 349.
(3) [1965] I W.L.R. 1454.
8-475 SCl/79

'•
I 04 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I 980] 1 S.C.R.

A ( i) Permissive presumptions or presumptions of fact.
(ii) Compelling presumptions or presumptions of law
(rebut-table).
(iii) Irrebuttable presumption of law or 'conclusive '1toof.'. ·
B ·Cl•auses (i), (ii) and (iii) are indicated in clauses (1), (2) and ( 3)
respectively, of Section 4, Evidence Act. 'Presumptions ol fact' are
inferences of certain fact patterns drawn from the experience and obser-
vation of the common course of nature, the constitulion of the human
mind, the springs of human action, the usages and habits of society
and ordinary course of human affairs .. Section 114 is a general section
C dealing with presumptions of this kind. It is not obligatory for the
Court to draw a presumption of fact. In respect of such presumptions,
the Act allows the judge a discretion in each case to decide whether
the fact which under section 114 may be presumed has been proved
by virtue of that presumption.
D In case of a 'Presumption of Law' no discretion h'is been left to
the Court, and it is bound to presume the fact as proved until evidence
is given by the party interested to rebut or disprov0 it. Instances ot
such presumptions are to be found in sections 79, 80, 81, 83, 85,
89 and 105, Evidence Act.
The distinction between the effect of the first and the second kind
E
of presumptions on the burden of proof, is important. Presumptions of
Fact merely affect the "bur<;!en of going forward with the evidence."
'Presumptions of Law', however, "go so far as to shift the legal burden
of proof so that, in the absence of evidence sufficient to rebut it on a
balance of probability, a verdict must be directed". (Fleming).
F Though some decisions particularly of Courts in England are
inclined to adopt a somewhat different approach the predominant view
held by Courts in United States, Australia and Canada (See Temple v.
Terrace & Co., (') G.l.O. v. Fredrichberg( 2 ); United Motors Service
v. Hutson(') seems to be that the nwxim res z'psa loquitur raises ouly
a 'Permissive Presumption' exemplifying merely "the general principle
G
of inferring a fact in issue from circumstantial evidence where the
circumstances are meagre but significant". On thi> reasoning, Fleming
has opined that "the maxim is based merely on an estimate of logical
probability in a particular case not on any overriding legal policy that
controls initial allocation of the burdeu of proof or, by means of mau-
H ---·------
(!) .[1966] 57 D.L.R. 2d 63.
(2) [1968] ll C.L.R. 403.
(3) [1937] S.C.R. 294
SYAD AKBAR v. KARNATAKA (Sarkaria, J.) )05

datory presumptions, its reallocation regardless of the probabilities of, the A
particular instance". Fleming, then illustrates this proposition, by
giving an example, which for our purpose, is pertinent :
" .... If a Truck suddenly swerves across the road and
knocks into· a car drawn up on the shoulder of the opposite
side, this would without more raise an inference of negli- B
gence against the driver. Yet the plaintiff would fail, if the
Trier of the fact at the end of the case deems it no less pro-
bable tlrat the accident was caused by an unexpcctablc
break of the steering arm than by culpable maintenance of
the wheel assembly."
(Emphasis supplied) c
From what has been said above, it is clear that even in an action
in torts, if the defendant gives no rebutting evidence but a reasonable
explanation, equally consistent with the presence as well as with the
absence of negligence, the presumptions or inferences based o,n res ipsa
D
loquitur can no longer be sustained. The burden of proving the affir-
mative, that the defendant was negligent and the accident occurred by
his negligence, still remains with the plaintiff; and in such a situation
it will be for the Cour1 to determine at the time of judgment whether
the proven or undisputed facts, as a whole, disclose negligence. [See
Ballard's case (supra); The Kite(!); Per Evatt J. in Davis v. Bunn('), E
Mummary v. Irvings Proprietary Ltd. (Australia)('); Winnipeg E/ec-
t,rical Company Ltd. v. Jacob Geal(') See also : Brown v. Rolls
Royce Ltd.('); Hendersons v. Henry E. Jenkins and Sons( 6 ).

From the above conspectus, two lines 9f approach in regard to t11e
application and tffeet of the maxim res ipsa loquitur are discernible. F
According to the first, where the maxim applies it operates as an
exception to the general rule that the burden of proof of tile alleged
negligence is, in the first instance, on the plaintiff. In this view, if the
nature of an accident is such that the mere happening of it is evidence
of negligence, such as, where a motor vehicle without apparent cause
leaves the highway, or overturns, or in fair visibility runs into an G
obstacle; or brnshes the branches of an overhanging tree, resulting in
injury or where 1here is a duty on the defendant to exercise care; ·and
(1) [1933] p. 154.
(2) [1936] 56 C.L.R. 246 at 267.
(3) [1956] 96 C.L.R. 99.
(4) AIR 1932 p.c, 246. H
(5) [1960] 1 All. E.R. 577.
(6) [1970] A.E. 282.
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 s.c.R.

A the circumstances in which the injury complained of happened are
such that with the exercise of the requisite care no risk would in the
ordinary course ensue, the burden shifts or is in lhe first instance on
the defendant to disprove his liability. Such shifting or casting of the
burden on the defendant is on account of a presumption of law arising
against the defendant from the constituent circumstances of the accident
B itself, which bespeak negligence of the defendant. This is the view
taken in several decisions of English Courts. [For instance, see Burke
v. Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolshire Rail Co.,( 1) Moore v. R. Fox
& Sons('). Also see Paras 70, 79 and 80 of Halsbury's Laws of
England, Third Edition, Vol. 28, and the rulings mentioned in the
Foot Notes thereunder].

According to the other line of approach, res ipsa loquitur is not a
special rule of substantive Law; that functionally, it is only an aid in
the evaluation of evidence, "an application of the general method or
inferring one or more facts in issue from circumstances proved in
D evidence". In this view, the maxim res ipsa loquitur does not require
the raising of any presumption of law which must shift the onus on
the defendant. It cnly, when applied appropriately, allows the drawing
of a permissive inference of fact, as distinguished from a mandatory
presumption properly so-called, having regard to the totality of the
circumstances and probabilities of the case. Res ipsa is only a means
E of estimating logical probability from the circumstances of the accident.
Looked at from this angle, the phrase (as Lord Justice Kennedy put
it(•) only moons, 'that there is, in the circumstances of the particular
case, some evidence which, viewed not as a matter of conjecture, but
of reasonable argument, makes it more probable that there was some
negligence, upon the facts as shown and undisputed, than that the
F occurrence took place without negligence. . . . It :nean> that the
circumstances are, so to speak, eloquent of the negligence of somebody
who brought about the state of thing which is complained of."

In our opinion, for reasons that follow, the first line of approach
G which tends to give the maxim a larger effect than that of a merely
permissive inference, by laying down t)iat the application of the maxim
shifts or casts even in the first instance, the bnrden on the defendant
who in order to exculpate himself must rebut the presumption of negli-
gence against him, cannot, as such, be invoked in the trial of criminal
cases where t1e accused stands charged for causing injury or death
B (I) [1870122 L.J. 442.
(2) [1956] I.Q.B. 596.
(3) Russell v. London and South-Western Railway Co. [1908] 24 T.L.R. 54g
SYAD AKBAR v. KARNATAKA (Sarkaria, J.) 107

by negligent or rash act. The primary reasons for non-application of A
this abstract doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to criminal trials are : Firstly,
- in a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the
establishment of the charge against the accused always rests on the
prosecution, as every man is presumed to be innocent. Until the
contrary is proved, and criminality is never to be presumed subject to
B
statutory exception. No such statutory exception has been made by
requiring the drawing of a mandatory presumption of negligence against
the accused where the accident "tells its own stocy" of negligence 01
somebody. Secondly, there is a marked difference as to the effect of
evidence, viz. the proof in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil
proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the c
defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable
1nnowu 1snw l[!n'il JO no1suns1ad ~l!l 's1lUJpaaJ01d JUU!W!l(l D! 1nq 'iqnop
to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the Court, as a
reasonable man beyond all reasonable doubt. Where negligence is an
essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by
the prosecution mnst be culpable or gross and not the negligence D
merely based upon an error of judgment. As pointed out by Lord
Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions( 1), "simple Jack
of care such as will constitute civil liability, is not enough;" for liabilllY
under the criminal law "a very high degree of negligence is required
to be proved. Probably, of all the epithets that can be applied,
'rec~less' most ne2.riy covers the case''. E
However, shorn of its doctrinaire features, understood in the broad,
general sense, as by the other line Of decisions, only as a convenient
ratiocinative aid in assessment of evidence, in drawing permissive
inferences under section 114, Evidence Act, from the circumstances ot
the particular case, including the constituent circumstances of the acci- F '
dent, established in evidence, with a view to come to a conclusion at
the time of judgment whether or not, in favour of the alleged negligence
(among other ingredients of the offence with which the accused stands
charged), such a high degree of probability, as distinguished from a
mere possibility has been established which will convince reasonable
men with regard to the existence of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. G
Such h11rnessed, fu:1ctional use of the maxim will not conffict with the
provisions and the principles of the Evidence Act relating to the burden
of proof and other cogn.ate matters, peculiar to criminal jurisprudence.
Such simplified and pragmatic application of the notion of res ipm
loquitur, as a rart of the general mode of inferring a fact in issue H
from another circumstantial fact, is subject to all the principles, the
(I) [1937] 2 All E.R. 552-[1937] AC 576
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980) 1 S.C.R.

A satisfaction of which is essential before an accused ran be cecnvicted on
the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. Those are : Firstly, all the
citcnmstances, including the objective circumstances constituting .the ...
accident, from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, must be
fiirt1ly" established. Secondly, those circumstances must be of a deter-
minative tendency pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
B
Thirdly, the circumstances should make a chain so complete that they
cannot reasonably raise any other hypothesis save that of the accused·s
guilt. That is to say, they should be incompatible with his innocence,
and inferentially exclude all reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Let us now see whether the appellant, in the instant case, could with
c the aid of res ipsa, as explained and described in the preceding para-
graph, be held guilty of causing death by negligent or rash driving.
The primary reason given by the courts below for invoking the maxhn
is that tlie appellant had swerved the bus to the extreme right side c'il'
the road, where the unfortunate child, who came running from the
left side of the road, struck against the bus and was fatally knocked
D
down by its left· front wheel.

In our opinion, this circumstance of taking the vehicle suddenly to
the extreme right of the road, did not bespeak negligence or dereliction
of duty to exercise due care and control, on the part of the accused
in clear and u11ambig11ous voice. Nor could it be said, that the cause
' E of swerving the vehide to the right, was unknown. The accused gave
a reasonably convincing explanation of his conduct in doing so, and
his version was fully supported by four prosecution witnesses who had
seen the occurrence. In these circumstances, the maxim res ipsa
loquitur could bave no manner of application.
The picture of the occurrence that can be gathered and pieced
together from the statement of the accused recorded under section 3 l 3,
Criminal Procedure Code, and the testimony of the eyewitnesses, is
that when the mother was about to cross the road, she firmly told the
child vcho was following her at some distance, not to follow her, but
G to return home. The child it seems, stopped for a moment in the
road. probably on its left side, while the mother went ahead, crossed
the road and descended into the deep ditch on the other side from
where, according to her own admission, she could not see the bus
approaching the scene of occurrence. The child was, it seems, for the
moment undecided as to whether it should go back or go forward after
H the mother, and then ·ran or was poised to run •awards the right of
the road. It was just at this juncture the accused, who according to
the passenger-witnesses was driving the vehicle slowly, suddenly saw
.SYAD AKBAR v. KARNATAKA (Sarkaria, !.) 109

the child .a £hort distance ahead of the bus, in the road. In that situa- A
tion, it was extremely difficult, even for a mutious and skilled driver
in the position of the accused, to foresee and judge with accuracy as
to whether the child would go back to the left or shoot forward to
the right side of the road. In that split second he had to decide
about the better course to be adopted to avoid a collision with the
____ ... child. Whether it was better to swerve the vehicle to the extreme left B
or to the extreme right side of the road, that was the question for his
instant decision. It was in evidence that the metalled road ( .~re was
hardly 12 feet in width, and there were very deep ditches on both
sides of the road. Since the child was at that critical moment, initiaily,
in the road more towards the left-side, the accused might have thought C
that if he tried to run past the child from the extreme left, there was
every risk of the bus roiling down into the ditch. He therefore, thought
that the best way to avoid the ditches and to avoid the collision and
forestall the mo'.•o of the child would be to steer tl1e vehicle to the
extreme right side, and thus pass and dodge the child by a parabolic
manouver. But there was a limit to it. He could not, without incur- D
Jjng far greater risk of harm to many in the bus, take thei vehicle
off-course further to the right, beyond the point he did. It was in
evidence (Vide PW 5) that there was a very deep ditch on the right
of the road, close to the scene of the accident, e.nd that if uie bus had
gone further towards tl1at side, it would have met with disaster of a
far bigger magnitude, resulting in death or injury to the passengers and E
damage to the whicle. Unfortunately, his calculations went wrong
and he failed in his attempt to avoid the accident.
It was thus evident that the accident happened due to an error of
judgment, and not negligence or want of driving skill on the part of the
accused. An error of judgment of the kind, such as the one in the F
instant case, which comes to light only on post-accident reflection, but
could not be foreseen by the accused in that fragmented moment before
the accident, is not a sure index of negligence, particularly, when in
taking and executing that decisiO!Il the accused was acting with the
knowledge and in the belief that this was the best course to be adopted
in the circumstances for everyone's safety. G
Jn Ilorabin v. British Overseas Ai~ays Corporation(') the Court
was required to consider, more or less an analogous question, namely :
whether an act don~ contrary to instructions or standards, necessarily
constitutes wilful misconduct on the part of the person doing the act.
Borry J. answered this question in 'the negative, with the following H
observations :
(1): 1952] 2 Q.B.D. 1016.
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.
/'--

A "The mere fact that an act was done contrary to a plan or to (
instructions, or even to the standards of safe-flying, to the knowledge
of the person doing it, does not establish wilful misconduct 0n his part,
unless it is shown that he knew that he was doing something contrary
to the best interests of the passengers and of his employers or involving
them in a greater risk than if he had not done it. A grave error of
8 iudgment, particularly one apparent as such in the light of after events,
is not wilful misconduct if the person responsible thought he was acting
in the best interest of the passengers and· of the aircraft."
(Emphasis supplied)
Though Horabin was a case arising out of an aircraft accident and
c the observations extracted above were made in the context of an alle-
gation of 'wilful misconduct', yet the reasoning employed and the
principle enunciated, particularly in the last sentence which has now
been underlined are applicable to the facts of the case before us. The
'wilful misconduct' or 'wilful default' in issue in HorabinJs case was
not very different from a change of negligence, because 'negligence' has
D two meanings in the law of tort : it may mean either a mental element
which is to be inferred from one of the modes in which some torts
are committed, or it may mean an independent tort which consists of
breach of a legal duty to take care which results m damage, undesired
by the defendant." (See Earl Jowitt's Dictionary of England Law) ,_ __
E As in f-Jorabi11, here also, the accused had swerved •be vehicle to
the extreme right side of the road, not only to avoid collision with the
ill-fated child but also to avoid the risk of the vehicle falling into deep
ditches on either side of the road, with the resultant possibility of far
greater harm to the passengers in the bus.
After going through the English translation of the evidence of the
F
witnesses, furnished by the counsel and closely analysing the happening
and its circumstances in the light of arguments advanced on both side,
we are of opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant had caused the death of the child
by negligent or rash driving. All happened in fraction of a moment;
G and even if the worst was assumed against the appellant, the highest
that could be said was that a misjudgment on his part too slight to
be branded as culpable negligence, could well account for the accident
resulting in the death of the child.
These, then, are the reasons which we give in support of our Order
by which we had allowed Syad Akbar's appeal and acquitted him.
B

P.B.R. Appeal allowed.