Absence of zebra crossing does not absolve driver of liability for rash and negligent driving.

The applicant (original accused) challenged the concurrent findings of the Magistrate (Criminal Case No. 1418 of 2015) and the Sessions Court (Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2017), which convicted him for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On May 10, 2015, a motorcyclist (identified as the applicant) driving at high speed hit the complainant’s wife, Savitaben, causing fatal injuries.

The motorcycle (GJ-2-BN-8938) was found at the scene.

The applicant contended that there were contradictions regarding the vehicle number in witness testimonies, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and the absence of a zebra crossing absolved him of negligence.

1. Whether the impugned judgments suffer from palpable error, non-compliance with law, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the lack of a Test Identification Parade and minor contradictions in registration numbers vitiate the prosecution’s case.

3. Whether the driver’s conduct amounted to "rashness" or "criminal negligence" under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC.

Section 304-A and Section 279 of the IPC regarding causing death by negligence and rash driving on a public way.

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra (2012), establishing that revisional jurisdiction should focus on questions of law unless findings are perverse.

Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka (2007), which defined "rashness" as hazarding a dangerous act with knowledge of potential injury, and "criminal negligence" as the failure to exercise reasonable care and precaution.

The court found that the physical recovery of the motorcycle (GJ-2-BN-8938) at the spot, as recorded in the panchnama [Exh. 12], conclusively established the vehicle's involvement despite minor testimonial discrepancies.

Although no TIP was conducted, the court accepted the identification of the accused in court, noting the defense failed to challenge his identity during cross-examination.

Regarding negligence, the court inferred "rashness" from the severity of the victim's internal injuries (massive trauma to chest and limbs) and the location of the accident on a residential village road.

The court rejected the "zebra crossing" defense, ruling that driving at high speed in a residential area at night imposes a higher duty of care regardless of road markings.

The High Court dismissed the Revision Application and upheld the conviction and sentence (two years' simple imprisonment under Section 304-A). The applicant was directed to surrender before the jail authorities within four weeks.