A victim’s lack of a valid licence does not negate proof of the accused’s rash and negligent driving.

The prosecution alleged that on 3 April 2013 the petitioner drove a lorry rashly and negligently, collided with a TVS XL from behind, and ran over two occupants, causing their deaths.

The trial court convicted him under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A (two counts) of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentences, including one year’s simple imprisonment for each Section 304-A count, to run concurrently.

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the findings on the grounds that the principal prosecution witnesses were not eyewitnesses, the rider lacked a valid licence, and the circumstances suggested that the two-wheeler rider had lost control near a speed breaker.

He also sought probation, relying on his lack of bad antecedents.

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the petitioner’s conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death and injury, despite the challenges to the eyewitness evidence and the rider’s lack of a valid licence.

2. Whether the sentence should be modified, including in light of the petitioner’s request for probation.

The court considered Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, under which the petitioner had been convicted.

It also applied Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by directing that the period of imprisonment already undergone be set off against the sentence imposed.

The petitioner invoked the Probation of Offenders Act, but the judgment does not identify a specific provision of that Act or set out a separate legal test for probation.

No precedent was cited.

The court accepted that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not eyewitnesses, but found P.W. 4’s evidence that the lorry was driven rashly and negligently to be credible and not discredited in cross-examination.

It held that P.W. 4’s lack of a valid driving licence did not, by itself, make the prosecution case doubtful.

His testimony, considered alongside the manner of the collision and the tyre marks found on the deceased, supported the concurrent finding that the petitioner’s driving caused the deaths.

On sentence, the court considered the nature of the evidence, the petitioner’s age and other circumstances, and reduced the imprisonment for the two Section 304-A counts; it did not separately explain its treatment of the probation request.

It reduced the sentence for each of the two Section 304-A counts to six months’ simple imprisonment, confirmed the sentences for the other offences, directed that the sentences run concurrently, and ordered set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period already undergone.