Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, Kishor N, was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court IV, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.7848/2018 for offences under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court sentenced him on 30.04.2022. Aggrieved, he appealed to the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.626/2022, which confirmed the conviction on 04.09.2024. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The court noted that the First Appellate Court had suspended the sentence pending appeal and secured trial court records. The matter was listed multiple times before the appellate court. The High Court observed that the revision petitioner's counsel argued that the evidence did not prove rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court found that both lower courts had concurrently held the petitioner guilty based on the evidence. The High Court reiterated that in revision, it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. Since no such perversity or illegality was demonstrated, the court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rash Driving and Causing Death by Negligence - Sections 279, 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Concurrent Findings - Revision - The revision petitioner challenged concurrent findings of conviction for rash driving and causing death by negligence. The High Court held that in revision, it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. The court found no such perversity and dismissed the revision. (Paras 2-8)
B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope - Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to examining legality, regularity, or propriety of the lower court's order. It cannot act as an appellate court and re-appreciate evidence. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC are perverse or illegal warranting interference in revision.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or illegal
- Rash driving and negligence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Appellate court's appreciation of evidence is final on facts
Case Details
M. Shashidhara, Waheeda M.M.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition against concurrent findings of conviction for rash driving and causing death by negligence.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the trial court, and the appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the petitioner on 30.04.2022 in C.C.No.7848/2018; First Appellate Court confirmed the conviction on 04.09.2024 in Crl.A.No.626/2022.
Issues
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC are perverse or illegal warranting interference in revision.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the evidence did not prove rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent/State supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
In revision, the court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or illegal. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding in revision if based on evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Sri.M.Shashidhara, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/State.
Accused who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.7848/2018 dated 30.04.2022 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court – IV, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.626/2022.
Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court suspended the order of conviction and sentence by order dated 02.06.2022 and ordered to secure the Trial Court Records.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor took notice of the appeal and Trial Court Records were received on 17.11.2022.
Matter thereafter was listed eleven times before the First Appellate Court but on all those dates, the matter was adjourned.
Finally, the appeal was heard and dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted the petitioner on 30.04.2022. Petitioner appealed to the First Appellate Court, which suspended sentence on 02.06.2022 and secured records. After multiple adjournments, the appeal was dismissed on 04.09.2024. Petitioner then filed the present revision petition on 20.11.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 279, 304A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
