The Bombay High Court quashed the conviction and sentencing of Shivaji Santu Zanzad under Sections 279, 304(A), and 337 of the IPC for lack of conclusive evidence of rash and negligent driving. The court highlighted inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimony and emphasized contributory negligence of the motorcycle rider.

Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

   • Section 279: Rash driving or riding on a public way.
   • Section 304(A): Causing death by negligence.
   • Section 337: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973

   • Section 397: Revision jurisdiction.

1. Background of the Case

• Incident: The accident occurred on April 19, 1993, involving a PMT bus driven by the applicant and a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the pillion rider.
• Trial Court Judgment: Convicted under Sections 279, 304(A), and 337 IPC.
• Appellate Court Judgment: Upheld the conviction.

2. Prosecution's Case

• Evidence Presented:
  • PW-3 (eyewitness and driver of the motorcycle): Claimed rash driving by the PMT bus driver.
  • Spot Panchnama (Exhibit 11): Detailed damage to both vehicles.
  • RTO Reports: Submitted but inconclusive about the speed or negligence of the PMT bus.
• Issue: Discrepancies in testimony and absence of corroboration from independent witnesses.

3. Defense Arguments

• Counsel for Applicant: Asserted contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider, relying on:
  • PW-1's Deposition: Conductor of the bus observed the motorcycle overtaking a jeep recklessly.
  • Lack of direct evidence proving the applicant's rashness.
  • Incomplete investigation (non-examination of jeep/truck drivers involved).

4. Legal Analysis by the Court

• Inconsistencies in Evidence:
  • PW-1 and PW-3 provided conflicting accounts.
  • The motorcycle rider (PW-3) admitted to sudden braking and an error in judgment.
• Contributory Negligence: Highlighted as a critical factor ignored by lower courts.
• Doctrine of Proportionality: Emphasized that penal liability must match the degree of negligence.

5. Findings and Ratio Decidendi

• Key Observations:
  • Minor damage to the PMT bus (scratch/dent) disproved high speed or reckless behavior.
  • Prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving conclusively.
• Precedents Referenced:
  • State of Punjab vs. Saurabh Bakshi (2015): Punishment should reflect societal and victim interests.
  • Shivaji Damodar Karne vs. State of Maharashtra (2024): Importance of contributory negligence.

6. Conclusion

• Judgment: Conviction under Sections 279, 304(A), and 337 IPC quashed.
• Reasoning: Inadequate evidence, flawed reliance on prosecution witnesses, and failure to address contributory negligence.

Subjects:

Criminal Law—Rash and Negligent Driving

#CriminalLaw #MotorVehicleAccidents #Negligence #ContributoryNegligence #EvidenceAnalysis