Court’s Decision:
The High Court of Bombay, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., quashed the conviction and set aside the concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court against the accused, who was charged under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving. The court acquitted the accused, citing the absence of evidence proving rash and negligent driving.
Facts:
The incident occurred on December 2, 1997, when a BEST bus driven by the accused took a left turn at the junction of JSS Road and Shamaldas Gandhi Marg. The bus allegedly hit the deceased, who was crossing the road at that time. The victim fell unconscious and later died at the hospital. The prosecution charged the accused, a bus driver, under Sections 279 and 304A for causing death by rash and negligent driving.
Issues:
The primary legal question was whether the accused was guilty of rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of the deceased. The court also considered whether the lower courts failed to address contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner argued that the judgments of the lower courts were unsustainable due to their failure to correctly appreciate the evidence. The petitioner emphasized that the prosecution did not present any substantial evidence to prove rash and negligent driving by the accused. The sole eyewitness, a traffic inspector (PW-1), did not testify that the bus was driven rashly or at high speed. The petitioner also argued that the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was ignored by the courts.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The prosecution supported the concurrent findings of the lower courts and contended that the death was caused by the bus driven by the accused, leaving no doubt of negligence. The respondent argued that the powers of the court in revisional jurisdiction were limited and that the court should not interfere with the lower court’s findings.
Analysis of the Law:
The court applied the principle established in Krishnan vs. Krishnaveni and noted that in cases involving revisional jurisdiction, the court must prevent miscarriages of justice or correct procedural irregularities. The court held that the absence of evidence indicating rash and negligent driving required interference, as justice had been compromised. The court also referred to contributory negligence, which had been overlooked by the lower courts.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referenced Bhupinder Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, where it was held that the court must critically examine the evidence and that convictions under Sections 279 and 304A require clear evidence of negligence. The High Court also emphasized the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt to hold a person guilty of rash and negligent driving.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving. The sole eyewitness did not testify about the speed of the vehicle or any disregard for the traffic signal. Additionally, the court noted that the spot inspection conducted after the incident revealed no skid marks, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The absence of contributory negligence considerations was also a key flaw in the judgments of the lower courts.
Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the conviction and acquitted the accused. The court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of rash and negligent driving. The judgments of both lower courts were set aside.
Implications:
This judgment highlights the importance of clear and convincing evidence in cases involving rash and negligent driving. The decision also reiterates the significance of considering contributory negligence, especially in traffic-related incidents. It underscores the court’s duty to carefully scrutinize the evidence, ensuring that justice is not compromised by procedural errors or unsupported conclusions.