Revisional Court maintains conviction for rash and negligent driving based on site plan and consistent ocular testimony.

On the night of 14.05.2001, Megh Singh (deceased) was plying a Tonga (horse-cart) with seven passengers from ISBT Kashmere Gate toward Old Delhi Railway Station

At approximately 3:00 A.M. near Minerva Cinema, a DTC bus driven by the Petitioner (Jagbir Singh) hit the Tonga

The impact killed the driver and injured several passengers

The Petitioner admitted to being at the steering wheel but claimed the horse went berserk and dashed into his bus while he was on the correct side of the road

Both the Trial Court (19.09.2014) and the Sessions Court (05.01.2015) convicted the Petitioner under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the IPC

The Petitioner moved the High Court in revision, challenging the findings of rashness and negligence

1. Whether the findings of the lower courts were perverse or based on "no evidence," justifying interference under revisional jurisdiction.

2. Whether the prosecution successfully established that the accident was caused by the rash or negligent driving of the Petitioner.

3. Whether the sentence imposed ought to be modified given the passage of time and the clean antecedents of the revisionist.

Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., which limits revisional jurisdiction to correcting patent defects, errors of law, or gross miscarriage of justice rather than re-appreciating evidence as an appellate court

The Court relied on precedents including State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri regarding the supervisory nature of revision and Amit Kapur v. Ramesh Chander which defines the "well-founded error" threshold.

Sections 279 (Rash driving), 337/338 (Causing hurt/grievous hurt), and 304A (Causing death by negligence) of the IPC

The Court held that its revisional role is limited to evaluating the correctness and legality of the judgment, not re-evaluating facts unless the findings are manifestly perverse

Upon review, the Court found the testimony of eye-witnesses (PW-3, PW-6, PW-14) credible; they consistently stated the bus was being driven at high speed and hit the Tonga in its correct lane

The Court emphasized that the site plan (Ex. PW-13/E) served as objective evidence, demonstrating that the bus crossed into the wrong lane and dragged the Tonga a considerable distance

The Petitioner’s defense—that the horse was frightened or that lack of skid marks cleared him—was rejected as the ocular and documentary evidence (photographs and mechanical inspection) sufficiently proved negligence

Consequently, the Court found no "glaring feature" or jurisdictional error to upset the conviction

The Petitioner’s sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, citing the 25-year delay since the incident and his clean record.

The Court directed the Petitioner to deposit double the original compensation, totaling Rs. 1,60,000, to be distributed among the four injured persons (Rs. 40,000 each). Failure to deposit said amount within 10 days would result in 30 days of simple imprisonment.

The petition was disposed of with a direction for the Petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on 08.06.2026 for compliance.