Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Harish Narayan Burkule, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for causing a road accident on 11 February 2003. The applicant was driving a truck (No. MTT-6574) at high speed and collided with a taxi driven by deceased Gopal Manohar Ghumare, resulting in the death of two passengers and the taxi driver. The trial court sentenced the applicant to rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 279, one month under Section 337, six months under Section 338, and one year under Section 304A, with fines. The applicant appealed to the Sessions Court, Khamgaon, which dismissed the appeal on 22 October 2012. The applicant then filed a criminal revision before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, including eye-witnesses and the spot panchnama, and found that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. The revision was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on evidence of eye-witnesses and spot panchnama - Revision against concurrent findings of trial court and first appellate court - Held that the courts below correctly appreciated evidence and no interference is warranted in revisional jurisdiction (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are sustainable in law and on facts.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the first appellate court.
Law Points
- Rash and negligent driving
- Causing death by negligence
- Causing hurt by rash driving
- Causing grievous hurt by rash driving
- Appreciation of evidence in criminal revision
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (10) 188
Criminal Revision Application No. 166 of 2012
Shri S. V. Sirpurkar for the applicant, Shri S. S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant
Harish S/o Narayan Burkule
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death and injuries.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought setting aside of the conviction and sentence under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed by the first appellate court; hence he filed a revision before the High Court.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon convicted the applicant on 12-04-2006. The Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon dismissed the appeal on 22-10-2012.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the evidence was insufficient and the courts below erred in convicting him.
The State supported the concurrent findings and argued that the revision should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court, based on credible eye-witness testimony and spot panchnama, established the guilt of the applicant beyond reasonable doubt. No interference is warranted in revisional jurisdiction unless there is a perverse finding or miscarriage of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
This revision is against the judgment of trial Court and also the judgment of first appellate Court.
The case of the prosecution in short against the applicant is as under :
Two passengers and taxi driver died on the spot.
Procedural History
The applicant was tried by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khamgaon, who convicted him on 12-04-2006. The applicant appealed to the Sessions Court, Khamgaon, which dismissed the appeal on 22-10-2012. The applicant then filed Criminal Revision Application No. 166 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 29-10-2018.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 279, 337, 338, 304A, 427
