Concurrent findings of rash and negligent driving warrant no interference in criminal revision.

On 5 November 2002, a Maruti Van bearing registration No. WE-02C-2692 was allegedly hit by Tanker No. BR-2H-4057, which was being driven from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner.

The informant, Ram Mukhi, was travelling behind the van and witnessed the occurrence. The accident resulted in the deaths of Rameshwar Mukhi, Tuklu Mukhi, Rina Mukhi and Manisha Sandil, while several other passengers sustained injuries.

On the informant’s fardbeyan, Potka P.S. Case No. 74 of 2002 was registered against the unknown tanker driver under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

After investigation, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and tried. The trial court convicted him under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment, including two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-A IPC.

The appellate court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence on 6 February 2017. The petitioner challenged both decisions in the present criminal revision.

Whether the concurrent findings of guilt under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC were sustainable when the petitioner was not named in the FIR, was not arrested at the spot, and no test identification parade was conducted.

Whether the prosecution had sufficiently established that the accident resulted from the petitioner’s rash and negligent driving, rather than from the negligence of the Maruti Van driver.

Whether the alleged non-proof of the injury reports and post-mortem reports vitiated the petitioner’s conviction.

The Court applied Section 279 IPC, which penalises rash or negligent driving on a public way; Section 337 IPC, concerning causing hurt by an act endangering human life or personal safety; and Section 304-A IPC, concerning causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

In exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court considered whether the concurrent judgments of the courts below disclosed any illegality, perversity, or material misappreciation of evidence warranting interference.

The Court relied on the settled principle that concurrent findings based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence should not be disturbed in revision absent perversity or illegality.

The Court found that P.W. 7 was an eyewitness travelling behind the Maruti Van and had directly witnessed the tanker colliding with it while being driven rashly and negligently.

P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, who were injured in the accident, corroborated the prosecution version.

The Court noted that the date of the accident and the identity of the driver were not disputed, and that the evidence, read with the other material on record, established that the petitioner’s rash and negligent driving caused the collision, multiple deaths and injuries.

The objections regarding the absence of the petitioner’s name in the FIR, non-conduct of a test identification parade, and alleged non-proof of medical documents did not demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings.

The Court therefore declined to reappreciate or disturb the factual conclusions reached by the trial and appellate courts.

The petitioner’s bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the trial court within two months to undergo the remaining sentence.

In default, the trial court was directed to take coercive steps and issue the appropriate warrant for securing his custody.