Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Govind @ Dwarkadas s/o Nandkishor Loya against his conviction under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of a three-year-old child, Sachin Sanjay Jadhav, by rash and negligent driving of a tempo trax on 29 November 1997. The applicant was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sailu, in Summary Criminal Case No. 210 of 1997 on 3 July 1999, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default sentence of 45 days. The conviction was upheld by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1999 on 2 March 2002. The applicant then filed the present revision before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The prosecution case was that the applicant was driving the vehicle negligently and dashed against the child, causing his death. The first information report was lodged by Sheshrao Ashruba Raut (PW 1), and the police registered Crime No. 174 of 1997. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial court and the appellate court both found the applicant guilty based on the evidence of eyewitnesses. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, examined the concurrent findings of fact and held that there was no perversity or illegality in the findings. The court noted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the sentence imposed was not excessive. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Causing Death by Negligence - Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Rash and Negligent Driving - The applicant was convicted for driving a tempo trax negligently and causing the death of a three-year-old child. The courts below concurrently found the applicant guilty based on evidence of eyewitnesses and the fact that the vehicle was driven in a rash manner. The High Court in revision declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Interference - Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court in revisional jurisdiction will not re-appreciate evidence unless there is a patent illegality or perversity in the findings of the courts below. In the present case, the concurrent findings of fact were based on credible evidence and did not warrant interference. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by rash and negligent driving is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
Law Points
- Section 304A IPC
- Rash and Negligent Driving
- Causing Death by Negligence
- Standard of Proof in Criminal Revision
- Concurrent Findings of Fact
