Excessive speed constitutes criminal negligence under Section 304-A IPC regardless of external factors triggering loss of vehicle control.

On August 10, 2007, the applicant was driving a Tavera car with passengers from Lathi to Amreli.

At approximately 8:00 P.M., near Ishwariya village, a branch of a neem tree fell on the vehicle, causing the applicant to lose control and collide with another tree.

One passenger died, and three others were injured.

The Trial Court (Addl. JMFC, Amreli) convicted the applicant on February 27, 2009, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC, sentencing him to a maximum of two years of simple imprisonment.

This conviction was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, on October 6, 2009.

The applicant moved the High Court in revision, contending that the accident was an act of nature and not due to rash or negligent driving.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC suffer from perversity or legal error.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of probation given the circumstances of the accident.

3. Whether the prolonged duration of the litigation warrants a modification of the sentence.

The Court applied Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside the revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

It relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 to define the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, emphasizing that findings of fact should not be disturbed unless perverse.

The Court further cited Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhatisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 204 regarding the regularity of proceedings.

On the issue of probation for Section 304-A, the Court followed Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2000 SC 1677) and State of Punjab v. Balvinder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182, which restrict the extension of probation in motor accident deaths.

Section 31 of the CrPC was applied to direct sentences to run concurrently.

The applicant argued that the accident occurred solely due to the sudden fall of a tree branch, as supported by witness testimonies (PW-4 and PW-5).

However, the Court observed that while the branch falling was a factor, the applicant’s excessive speed prevented him from maintaining control or applying brakes effectively to avoid the second tree.

The Court determined that a driver of a passenger vehicle is duty-bound to follow traffic rules and maintain a speed that allows for emergency maneuvers.

In its revisional capacity, the Court found no palpable error or arbitrary exercise of discretion by the lower courts that would justify overhauling the concurrent findings of fact.

Regarding the plea for probation, the Court held that the alarming rise in road accidents and the gravity of the offense under Section 304-A precluded such relief.

noting that the incident occurred in 2007 and nearly 20 years had elapsed during the pendency of the revision, the Court directed the sentences to run concurrently.

It further ordered that the remaining sentence of imprisonment be set off against an additional fine of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid within three weeks.

The bail bonds were cancelled, and the applicant was discharged subject to the payment of the fine.