Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Shivaji Damodar Karne, a bus driver employed with BEST, was convicted by the trial court (28th Esplanade Court, Mumbai) in CC No.40/P/98 for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2001 on 18.06.2002. The incident occurred on 02.12.1997 at about 6:45 p.m. when a BEST double-decker bus (Route No.66) driven by the applicant took a left turn at the junction of JSS Road and Shamaldas Gandhi Marg and hit a pedestrian, who later died. The prosecution examined two witnesses: PW-1, Traffic Police Constable Sadashiv Garde (the sole eyewitness and first informant), and PW-2, Investigating Officer Kiran Kabadi. The trial court convicted the applicant, holding that he drove the bus with indifference. The appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the applicant argued that there was no evidence of rash or negligent driving, as PW-1 did not state that the bus was driven rashly or negligently. The applicant also contended that the principle of contributory negligence was ignored, as the deceased may have attempted to cross the road at a signal junction. The State supported the concurrent findings. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, examined the evidence and found that the sole eyewitness (PW-1) had not deposed that the applicant drove the bus rashly or negligently. The court noted that the trial court's finding of 'indifference' did not equate to rash or negligent driving. The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Consequently, the court allowed the revision application, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of Power - The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, can re-appreciate evidence to ascertain if the judgments below are perverse or based on incorrect appreciation, especially when there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial process. (Paras 8-9) B) Indian Penal Code - Rash and Negligent Driving - Section 279 IPC - Causing Death by Negligence - Section 304-A IPC - Essential Ingredients - For conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused drove the vehicle rashly or negligently. Mere occurrence of an accident and death is insufficient; there must be evidence of negligence. (Paras 6.3, 11) C) Evidence Law - Contributory Negligence - Appreciation - In cases of road accidents, the principle of contributory negligence must be considered. If the deceased attempted to cross the road at a signal junction, he may have been equally negligent, and the driver cannot be held solely liable. (Para 6.4) D) Criminal Revision - Interference with Concurrent Findings - Section 397 CrPC - When the trial court and appellate court fail to consider material evidence or base their findings on no evidence, the High Court can interfere to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 9, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was sustainable in the absence of any evidence of rash or negligent driving by the applicant, and whether the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court, and acquitted the applicant of all charges.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
- Rash and negligent driving under Section 279 IPC
- Causing death by negligence under Section 304-A IPC
- Contributory negligence
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal revision
