Revisional courts cannot reappreciate concurrent findings absent patent error, illegality, perversity, or material irregularity.

On 23 March 2008 at approximately 3:00 p.m., the petitioner was driving Blue Line Bus No. DL1PB3866, which, while turning towards Ashoka Road from Parliament Street at Gol Chakkar near Nirvachan Bhavan, collided with a Jamun tree situated on the left-side footpath.

One passenger died and several others sustained injuries, leading to registration of FIR No. 50/2008 at Police Station Parliament Street.

Charges were framed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the prosecution examined 17 witnesses.

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner on 10 March 2022 and sentenced him to a cumulative two years’ simple imprisonment, fines, compensation to three victims and further imprisonment in default.

The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence by order dated 11 August 2023.

In revision, the petitioner claimed that he was driving below 20 kmph and had swerved to avoid a scooterist who suddenly appeared, while the State contended that the accident resulted from his rash and negligent driving.

Whether the concurrent findings that the petitioner drove the bus rashly and negligently, thereby causing hurt, grievous hurt and death punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, disclosed any patent illegality, perversity or other revisional error warranting interference under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

Whether the petitioner’s defence that he collided with the tree while attempting to avoid a scooterist, and that the bus’s overloading was attributable to the conductor, created a reasonable doubt regarding his criminal liability.

Whether, notwithstanding affirmation of the conviction, the substantive sentence should be reduced considering the petitioner’s age, family circumstances, antecedents and period of incarceration already undergone.

The Court applied Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC, which criminalise rash or negligent driving on a public way endangering human life and acts causing hurt, grievous hurt or death by negligence.

It exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, observing that revision is supervisory and permits interference where there is a patent defect, jurisdictional or legal error, non-compliance with law, findings based on no evidence, disregard of material evidence, or arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion.

The Court relied on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. , (2012) 9 SCC 460, for these limits on revisional interference.

The prosecution was required to establish that the petitioner drove rashly or negligently and that such conduct caused the relevant injuries or death.

The Court found that the petitioner’s identity as the driver and the collision with the tree were admitted.

The consistent testimony of PW4, PW5, PW7, PW10, PW11 and PW12, particularly evidence that the bus was driven at approximately 60–70 kmph, overtook several vehicles and accelerated while turning at Gol Chakkar, supported the finding of rash and negligent driving.

The medical and post-mortem records established the injuries and death resulting from the occurrence.

The scooterist defence was rejected because, according to the site plan and ordinary driving logic, avoiding a scooter allegedly approaching from the left would ordinarily require steering to the right, whereas the bus struck a tree on the left.

The overloading contention did not undermine the conviction because the conviction was based on the petitioner’s speeding and negligent driving, not merely on overloading.

Finding no patent error, illegality, irregularity or perversity in the concurrent findings, the Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

However, considering the petitioner’s age of 52 years, humble financial circumstances, responsibility for two minor children, status as sole breadwinner, clean antecedents and satisfactory conduct during approximately ten months of incarceration, the Court considered reduction of the substantive sentence appropriate.

The petitioner’s conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and the impugned appellate order dated 11 August 2023 were upheld.

The term of simple imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, while the other components of the sentence were not disturbed.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.