Revision may set aside concurrent convictions where ignored material evidence creates reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that on 28 October 2018 the petitioner, driving a Maruti Ertiga, drove rashly and negligently, struck a road divider, and collided with a Maruti Swift, causing deaths and injuries.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC.

The Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment under Section 304-A; the First Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

He challenged both decisions in revision, arguing, among other things, that witnesses PW-2 to PW-5 attributed the accident to a tyre burst and that the evidence did not establish rash or negligent driving

1. Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC suffered from illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference in revision

2. Whether the evidence, including PW-1’s account, the tyre-burst evidence of PW-2 to PW-5, and the IMV report, proved rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt

Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. confer revisional jurisdiction to correct grave or manifest errors of law or procedure, but do not permit the High Court to act as a regular appellate court or routinely reappreciate evidence; interference is warranted where material evidence has been ignored and the resulting finding is perverse or causes injustice (Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631; State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu, (2023) 6 SCC 768; State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475)

Where the evidence supports two reasonable views, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted if the prosecution evidence raises a reasonable doubt (Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 5 SCC 350).

A conviction may rest on a sole eyewitness’s testimony if it is wholly reliable; otherwise, it requires careful scrutiny (Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 165).

The Court found that PW-1’s evidence about the Ertiga’s speed and manner of driving lacked satisfactory corroboration, while PW-2 to PW-5 attributed the accident to a tyre burst.

The IMV report did not conclusively establish the precise cause of the accident, and the prosecution had not examined the motor-vehicle inspector.

The Court held that the lower courts had failed to properly consider this material evidence, creating reasonable doubt about rash and negligent driving.

Because that omission affected the finding of guilt, revisional interference was justified notwithstanding the limits on revisional review

It ordered the petitioner’s acquittal under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and discharged his bail bond and surety

The acquittal clause does not list Section 338 IPC, although the judgment sets aside the conviction and sentence generally and the issue addressed all four offences