Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chand Basha, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C. No. 165 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for allegedly driving a KSRTC bus rashly and negligently, causing an accident that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to another. The conviction was confirmed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2008. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle. The eyewitnesses, including the injured person, did not identify the petitioner in court as the driver. The investigating officer did not record the registration number of the bus in the complaint, and there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was on duty at the time of the accident. The courts below had convicted the petitioner based on weak and conjectural evidence. The High Court held that the concurrent findings were perverse and liable to be set aside. The revision petition was allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving - Identity of Accused - Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC - The prosecution failed to establish that the accused was the driver of the KSRTC bus involved in the accident, as the eyewitnesses did not identify him in court and the investigating officer did not record the registration number of the bus in the complaint. The courts below erred in convicting the accused based on weak evidence. Held that the conviction is unsustainable and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Revision - Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC - The revisional court can interfere with concurrent findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the findings were based on surmises and conjectures, warranting interference. Held that the revision petition is allowed and the accused is acquitted. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC are sustainable in law when the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle and that the accident was caused due to his rash and negligent driving.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2011 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bellary, in Crl. Appeal No. 91 of 2008, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C. No. 165 of 2007, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC.
Law Points
- Criminal revision
- concurrent findings
- scope of revision
- rash and negligent driving
- identity of accused
- burden of proof
- Section 279 IPC
- Section 337 IPC
- Section 304A IPC
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 401 CrPC
