Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sudhir s/o Kalidas Deshmukh, a driver employed with the S.T. Depot, Soyegaon, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Soygaon, on 15th March 2003 in Summary Criminal Case No.173 of 2001 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/-. His appeal (Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2003) was dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, on 30th April 2005. Aggrieved, he filed the present Criminal Revision Application No.308 of 2005 before the Bombay High Court. The prosecution case was that on 25th March 2001, at about 7:30 a.m., the applicant was driving a State Transport bus bearing registration No.MH-20/AL-4288 from Soyegaon to Aurangabad. Near village Pimpalgaon, the bus was driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against a pedestrian, Sitaram s/o Pandurang Gite, who was walking on the correct side of the road. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The prosecution examined three witnesses: PW-1, an eyewitness; PW-2, another eyewitness; and PW-3, the Investigating Officer. The applicant did not examine any defense witness. The trial court and the appellate court both found the prosecution evidence credible and convicted the applicant. In revision, the High Court noted that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse or illegal. The court observed that the applicant had not shown any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Section 279, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Causing Death by Negligence - Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The applicant, a bus driver, was convicted for driving rashly and negligently, resulting in the death of a pedestrian. The prosecution examined eyewitnesses who testified that the bus was driven at high speed and dashed against the deceased. The defense argued that the deceased suddenly came in front of the bus, but no evidence was led. The courts below concurrently found the applicant guilty. Held that the concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or illegal. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rash and negligent driving causing death is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Soygaon in Summary Criminal Case No.173 of 2001, confirmed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2003, are upheld.
Law Points
- Rash and negligent driving
- Causing death by negligence
- Burden of proof
- Appreciation of evidence
- Revision jurisdiction
