Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioner, Kishor N, was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court IV, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.7848/2018 dated 30.04.2022 for offences punishable under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before 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 judgments. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The court noted that the First Appellate Court had suspended the conviction and sentence on 02.06.2022 and secured the trial court records, and the matter was listed eleven times before the appellate court. The High Court observed that the courts below had concurrently held the petitioner guilty based on the evidence on record. The revision court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision petition as devoid of merits. The court directed that the trial court records be sent back forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rash Driving and Causing Death by Negligence - Sections 279, 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Revision against concurrent conviction - The revision petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of conviction for rash driving and causing death by negligence. The High Court held that the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence and there was no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings. The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. (Paras 2-8)
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 revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. The trial court records shall be sent back forthwith.
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 re-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 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 appellate court.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and his appeal was dismissed.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted petitioner on 30.04.2022 in C.C.No.7848/2018; First Appellate Court confirmed 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 conviction was not sustainable.
State supported the concurrent findings.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by courts below, based on proper appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with in revision unless shown to be perverse or illegal.
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.
The revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
The trial court records shall be sent back forthwith.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted petitioner on 30.04.2022. Petitioner appealed to First Appellate Court which confirmed conviction on 04.09.2024. Petitioner then filed revision petition before High Court, which was dismissed on 20.11.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 279, 304A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
