Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Athaulla, was convicted by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Gudibande in C.C.No.16/2007 for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Trial Court sentenced him to pay fines for the first three offences and to undergo simple imprisonment for 1½ years for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – I, Chickballapur in Crl.A.No.39/2009, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence on 06.01.2011. The petitioner then filed the present criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, found that the courts below had concurrently held that the petitioner drove a vehicle rashly and negligently, causing the death of one person and injuries to others. The High Court observed that the revisional court's scope is limited and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity. No such perversity was found. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC - Conviction - The petitioner/accused was convicted by the Trial Court for rash and negligent driving causing death and injuries. The first Appellate Court confirmed the conviction. The High Court in revision examined the evidence and found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings. Held that the conviction and sentence are sustainable and the revision petition is dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 Cr.P.C - Scope - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence like an appellate court unless there is manifest illegality or perversity. The High Court found that the courts below had properly appreciated the evidence and the findings were based on material on record. Held that no interference is warranted. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed 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
- Standard of proof in criminal revision
- Concurrent findings of fact
