The Bombay High Court in a criminal revision application challenging his conviction for causing the death of a pedestrian due to alleged rash and negligent driving. The trial and appellate courts had sentenced Karne under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the High Court found no concrete evidence proving Karne's rash or negligent driving and suggested contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Consequently, the court set aside the previous judgments and acquitted Karne.

1. Facts of the Case:

   • The incident occurred on December 2, 1997, when a BEST bus, driven by Karne, allegedly hit a pedestrian while making a left turn at a junction in Mumbai. The pedestrian succumbed to injuries at a nearby hospital. The prosecution charged Karne under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC.
   • Karne was convicted by both the trial court and the appellate court. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and fined ₹1,000. Karne filed a criminal revision application challenging these judgments.

2. Main Issues:

   • Whether the applicant (Karne) drove rashly or negligently, causing the death of the pedestrian.
   • Whether the deceased was contributorily negligent in the accident.

3. Prosecution's Evidence:

   • The key evidence was the testimony of a traffic constable (PW-1), who stated that Karne's bus hit the pedestrian while making a turn.
   • An investigating officer testified that no mechanical defects were found in the bus.
   • However, neither witness provided clear evidence of rash or negligent driving.

4. Applicant's Defense:

   • Karne's counsel argued that there was no evidence of reckless driving. The prosecution's witnesses did not testify about excessive speed, signal-breaking, or careless driving.
   • The defense also highlighted contributory negligence by the deceased, as the pedestrian was attempting to cross the road when the bus took a sharp turn at the junction.

5. Court's Analysis:

   • The court found that neither the prosecution witnesses nor the available evidence proved that Karne was driving rashly or negligently. The absence of skid marks at the accident site further weakened the prosecution's case.
   • The court also considered contributory negligence, noting that the deceased’s attempt to cross the road while the bus was turning contributed to the accident.
   • The court held that the previous judgments had failed to appreciate these facts and overturned Karne’s conviction.

6. Conclusion and Orders:

   • The court acquitted Karne of all charges under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.
   • If Karne had been suspended or dismissed from service due to the conviction, he would be reinstated with back pay or entitled to retirement benefits.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 279, IPC: Rash driving or riding on a public way.
• Section 304A, IPC: Causing death by negligence.
• Section 397, CrPC: Revisional powers of the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Bombay High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent driving beyond a reasonable doubt. The only available witness, a traffic constable, did not testify about speed, reckless behavior, or any specific negligent act on the part of Karne. Moreover, the concept of contributory negligence was crucial in this case, as the deceased’s actions also contributed to the fatal accident. The court emphasized that mere involvement in an accident does not imply guilt, especially without concrete proof of rashness or negligence.

Subjects:

• Acquittal
• Rash driving
• Contributory negligence
• Criminal revision
• IPC Section 279
• IPC Section 304A