"Revision Application Dismissed for Lack of Merit in Conviction of Rash and Negligent Driving Leading to Death" "High Court finds no illegality in the conviction and sentence imposed for rash driving that caused the death of a pedestrian and a bullock."


Summary of Judgement

A fatal accident caused by Applicant, who was driving a tempo that hit a pedestrian, Kashinath, and his bullock, resulting in their deaths. Bade challenged the lower courts' findings, raising issues regarding the identification of the driver and suggesting that the accident occurred due to an unmanageable bullock. The Court dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence with slight modification, as there was no merit in the applicant's arguments.

  1. Introduction and Case History (Para 1-2):
    The applicant, Sambhaji Bhagwan Bade, was convicted for causing a fatal accident due to rash and negligent driving. The case was heard at length, with the applicant raising issues about procedural lapses, including unaddressed questions in his Section 313 CrPC statement.

  2. Identification Issues and Delay (Para 3-4):
    The applicant argued that his identity as the driver was not established and that there was a procedural delay. However, the court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that the identity of the driver was clear based on the trial records.

  3. Arguments Raised by the Applicant (Para 5-6):
    The defense raised points that no passengers from the tempo were examined, and there were brake marks on the road, suggesting an attempt to stop. However, the prosecution countered that the applicant admitted his medical certificate, and the accident resulted in two deaths, making his conviction valid.

  4. Scope of Revision and Evidence Review (Para 7-8):
    The court explained that in revision, re-appreciation of evidence is not allowed unless there is illegality in findings. The evidence from eyewitnesses and the spot panchnama confirmed the rash driving of the tempo.

  5. Eyewitness Testimony and Spot Evidence (Para 9-11):
    The key eyewitnesses, PW No. 1 and PW No. 4, testified that the tempo hit Kashinath and a bullock before crashing into a tree. Tire marks indicated high speed and sudden braking, contradicting the applicant's claim of an unmanageable bullock.

  6. Judicial Precedents and Negligence (Para 12):
    The court cited relevant judgments on rash and negligent driving. It found that the applicant’s act of hitting a pedestrian, a bullock, and then a tree indicated both rashness and negligence.

  7. Findings of the Lower Courts (Para 13-14):
    The court upheld the findings of the trial and appellate courts, rejecting the applicant’s challenge regarding identity. The revision application had no merit, and the court relied on the legal principle res ipsa loquitur to confirm the applicant’s guilt.

  8. Conclusion and Final Orders (Para 15-16):
    The court slightly modified the sentence, considering the applicant's mental and physical condition. It ordered that the sentence already undergone would suffice, but the fine would remain unchanged.


Acts and Sections Discussed:

  1. Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Causing death by negligence.
  2. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Examination of accused.
  3. Section 317 of CrPC – Dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that the applicant’s act of rash and negligent driving was sufficiently proven based on eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence at the spot of the accident. The lacuna in the Section 313 CrPC statement did not invalidate the trial, as the court took corrective measures. The conviction was upheld, with a slight modification in the sentence considering the applicant’s physical and mental condition.


Subjects:

Criminal law – Revision Application – Rash and Negligent Driving – Section 304-A IPC.

Rash Driving, Negligence, Section 304-A, Revision Application, Eyewitness Testimony, Accident Case.

The Judgement

Case Title: Sambhaji Bhagwan Bade Versus The State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 270

Case Number: Criminal Revision Application No. 363 of 2024

Date of Decision: 2024-09-27