Conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death upheld; Section 304A sentence reduced.

On 2 May 2010, the informant, Pappu Sao, and his father, Chintamani Sao, were crossing the G.T. Bye-Pass Road near Panchwati Nagar when a TVS Victor motorcycle bearing registration no. JH11C-4206 allegedly, driven rashly and negligently, hit Chintamani Sao. He was taken to Dumri Hospital and referred to PMCH, Dhanbad, but died on the way.

On the informant’s written report, Dumri P.S. Case No. 13 of 2012 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against Binod Sao, and the trial court convicted him under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, sentencing him to six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 279 and eighteen months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 304A, with the sentences to run concurrently. The appellate court dismissed his appeal on 27 July 2017. The accused thereafter preferred the present criminal revision.

Six prosecution witnesses were examined, while the defence led no evidence.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was driving the motorcycle rashly or negligently so as to attract liability under Sections 279 and 304A IPC?

Whether the evidence sufficiently established the petitioner’s identity as the driver of the offending motorcycle and connected his driving with the death of the deceased?

Whether the sentence imposed under Section 304A IPC warranted interference or modification in revision?

The Court applied Section 279 IPC, which penalises driving or riding on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or likely cause hurt or injury, and Section 304A IPC, which criminalises causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

The essential requirement for conviction under these provisions is proof of rash or negligent driving causally connected with the death or injury.

The Court also applied the principles governing limited revisional interference with concurrent findings of fact, declining to disturb such findings where they are supported by reliable evidence and are not perverse.

The petitioner’s reliance on Birju Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., Cr. Revision No. 652 of 2018, decided on 28 August 2024, was held inapplicable on the facts of the present case.

The Court found that the informant, examined as P.W.-3, gave a consistent eyewitness account of the accident and specifically supported the allegation that the motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently.

P.Ws. 2 and 4 corroborated the prosecution version, and the medical evidence was treated as supporting the occurrence and its fatal consequence.

The investigating officer described the place of occurrence and stated that the petitioner appeared in the case, obtained bail as the driver of the offending vehicle, and produced the vehicle’s registration certificate, driving licence and insurance documents. The motorcycle was registered in the petitioner’s name and was subsequently handed over to him after mechanical examination.

On this evidence, the Court held that the petitioner’s identity and his connection with the vehicle were established, and that the prosecution proved that his driving resulted in the deceased being dashed and ultimately dying.

The Court rejected the arguments that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, that the eyewitnesses had improved their testimony, and that the post-mortem report did not expressly record death from a vehicular accident, finding no basis to take a different view from the courts below.

However, while affirming the conviction, the Court considered the sentence under Section 304A IPC excessive and reduced it from eighteen months to one year.

The sentence under Section 279 IPC—six months’ rigorous imprisonment—was maintained, while the sentence under Section 304A IPC was reduced to one year’s imprisonment; the sentences continued to run concurrently.

The suspension of sentence granted during the revision was cancelled, and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within two months, failing which coercive steps could be taken for his arrest and detention.