Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by the accused, Zamir Khan, challenging his conviction for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The incident occurred on 21 March 2008 at about 20:00 hours at Bodgini, Mapusa, Goa, when the accused drove his rickshaw (bearing no. GA-02/6921) from Parra to Mapusa in a rash and negligent manner. At Bodgini Temple, he dashed against a scooter (bearing no. GA-03/M-4724) ridden by Sameer Narayan Gad, who was proceeding in the opposite direction. The scooter driver sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, admitted to driving the rickshaw at the time of the accident. The trial court (J.M.F.C., Mapusa) convicted the accused and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 IPC, one year under Section 304-A IPC, and one month under Section 134(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, with a default fine of Rs.500. The accused appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction. The accused then filed the present revision before the High Court. The High Court observed that both courts below had recorded concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, and the accused had admitted to driving the vehicle. The court held that there was no perversity or illegality in the findings, and the scope of revision is limited. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Causing Death - Sections 279, 304-A IPC, Section 134(a) Motor Vehicles Act - The accused drove a rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a scooter, causing the death of the rider. The trial court convicted the accused and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. The High Court in revision held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse or illegal. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the accused's rash and negligent driving causing death warrant interference in revision jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court are upheld.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Rash and negligent driving
- Section 279 IPC
- Section 304-A IPC
- Section 134(a) Motor Vehicles Act
- Scope of revision under CrPC
