Rash-driving convictions upheld, but sentences modified to reduce imprisonment and enhance fines.

On 5 June 2010, the petitioner was driving a car involved in a collision with another car near Jogayellapur Village on the Hubballi–Dharwad bypass. The collision caused injuries to occupants of the cars, and two persons later died.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After trial, the JMFC convicted him and imposed sentences, including one year’s imprisonment and a fine under Section 304A IPC.

The Sessions Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the courts’ assessment of the evidence, principally arguing that the road’s gradient and the direction of travel undermined the allegation of rash and negligent driving.

1. Whether the concurrent findings of guilt suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision.

2. Whether the sentences imposed required modification in light of the circumstances urged by the petitioner.

The prosecution proceeded under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, concerning rash or negligent driving on a public way, causing hurt, causing grievous hurt, and causing death by a rash or negligent act, respectively.

The revision was brought under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Court considered whether the concurrent judgments disclosed illegality or perversity calling for revisional interference.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found that eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2 spoke to the petitioner’s rash and negligent driving, and that the sketch supported the prosecution case.

Although the petitioner relied on evidence that the road rose before the accident site, the sketch did not describe the road as uphill or downhill; further, he had not raised that topographical defence in his Section 313 statement, led defence evidence, or elicited contrary evidence from the investigating officer.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the concurrent convictions.

On sentence, it considered the petitioner’s personal circumstances and the fact that the accident caused two deaths and other injuries, and reduced the custodial terms while increasing certain fines.

The order specifies two months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 under Section 304A, two months and ₹10,000 under Section 338, and two months and ₹500 under Section 337; it directs that the imprisonment terms run concurrently and that the total fine of ₹65,500 be deposited within two months, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

Although the order’s sentencing list does not separately state a modified sentence under Section 279, paragraph 17 records two months’ simple imprisonment and a ₹5,000 fine under that section, and the total fine directed in the final order includes that amount.