Bombay High Court Partly Allows Revision in Rash Driving Case, Maintains Conviction but Reduces Sentence for Aged Accused. Conviction under Section 304A IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving upheld, but sentence reduced to period already undergone due to age and health of accused.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 66
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by Dakaram Bhojraj Khotele, a bus driver, against his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori, in Summary Criminal Case No. 2047/2008. The applicant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of a person by rash and negligent driving of his ST bus. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 304A, with no separate sentence for the other offences. The first appellate court upheld the conviction. In revision, the applicant's counsel argued that there were material omissions in the evidence of P.W. 1 Radheshyam Shahare, the key eyewitness. The Additional Public Prosecutor supported the conviction, stating that the evidence was sufficient. The High Court examined the evidence and found that P.W. 1 had stated that the deceased was standing near a pan shop when the applicant drove the bus rashly and negligently, causing the accident. The defence that the deceased was negligent while crossing the road was rejected by the trial court. The High Court held that the conviction was legally correct. However, considering that the applicant was aged about 70 years, retired, bedridden, and had been contesting the case since 2006, the court modified the sentence. The conviction under Section 304A was maintained, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year was reduced to the period already undergone (six months), and the fine was increased to Rs. 5,000. The revision was partly allowed.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Causing Death by Negligence - Sections 304A, 279, 338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction for causing death by rash and negligent driving of ST bus - Evidence of P.W. 1 found credible - Defence of negligence of deceased rejected - Held that conviction is sustainable (Paras 2-5).

B) Criminal Law - Sentence Reduction - Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Accused aged 70 years, retired, bedridden, contesting case since 2006 - Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year reduced to period already undergone (six months) with fine increased to Rs. 5,000/- - Held that lenient view warranted due to age and health (Para 6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction under Sections 304A, 279, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving causing death is sustainable, and whether the sentence should be reduced considering the age and health of the accused.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Revision partly allowed. Conviction under Section 304A IPC maintained. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year modified to period already undergone (six months). Fine increased from Rs. 500 to Rs. 5,000.

Law Points

  • Rash and negligent driving
  • Causing death by negligence
  • Section 304A IPC
  • Sentence reduction for aged accused
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (11) 72

Criminal Revision Application No. 195 of 2011

2018-11-27

M. G. Giratkar, J.

Shri M. V. Rai for applicant, Shri C. A. Lokhande, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1

Dakaram Bhojraj Khotele

State of Maharashtra, Dhonduji Raut (dead), Sayatribai Wd/o Dhondu Raut

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

Remedy Sought

Applicant sought to set aside conviction or reduce sentence

Filing Reason

Applicant convicted under Sections 304A, 279, 338 IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving of ST bus

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted and sentenced to one year RI; first appellate court upheld conviction

Issues

Whether the conviction under Sections 304A, 279, and 338 IPC is sustainable on evidence Whether the sentence should be reduced considering the age and health of the accused

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant's counsel: Material omission in evidence of P.W. 1; lenient view as applicant is aged 70, retired, bedridden, contesting since 2006 Respondent's counsel: Both judgments well-reasoned; sufficient evidence; revision liable to be dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction for causing death by rash and negligent driving under Section 304A IPC is sustainable based on credible eyewitness testimony. However, the sentence may be reduced considering the advanced age, retirement, and health of the accused, as well as the long pendency of the case.

Judgment Excerpts

Present revision is against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deori in Summary Criminal Case No. 2047/2008 by which the applicant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304A, 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Looking to the submissions and to meet the ends of justice, following order is passed.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted applicant under Sections 304A, 279, 338 IPC and sentenced to one year RI. First appellate court upheld conviction. Applicant filed criminal revision before High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 304A, 279, 338
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Charges Under SC/ST Act for Lack of Caste-Based Insult and Public View Requirement. Allegations of Land Dispute Do Not Attract Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act as Insult Not on Account of Caste and Incident Occurred Inside Building ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal Against Discharge of Police Officers in Corruption Case. High Court Erred in Appreciating Evidence at Discharge Stage Under Section 227 Cr.P.C.