Conviction under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC cannot rest on conjecture without cogent evidence.

The appellant challenged his conviction by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from a tractor-and-trolley accident that caused a death and injuries

The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 15 documents.

The High Court noted that the material witnesses, including the alleged eyewitnesses and complainant, did not support the prosecution case; the trial court had acquitted the appellant and co-accused of other charged offences.

Whether the appellant had established grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment of conviction and order on sentence under Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC

The appeal was brought under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The conviction concerned Sections 279, 338 and 304A IPC, addressing rash or negligent driving, causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety, and causing death by a rash or negligent act, respectively.

The judgment applied the requirement that a criminal conviction must rest on legally acceptable evidence; it cited no precedent or further legal test.

The Court found that the alleged eyewitnesses and other material prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case, and that the remaining evidence—including medical and investigation evidence—did not provide cogent evidence establishing the appellant’s guilt for the charged offences.

It therefore concluded that the trial court had convicted the appellant on assumptions and presumptions rather than legally acceptable evidence.

It also cancelled the appellant’s bail bond and directed the trial court to refund the fine amount deposited, subject to proper identification.