Explore a compelling legal analysis of a recent court judgment regarding a conviction for rash and negligent driving. This summary focuses on the court’s evaluation of the evidence presented, the legal standards applied, and the nuances of proving negligence in such cases. Delve into the complexities of the legal analysis provided by the court in this thought-provoking case.
Facts
- The appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 7 December, 2020.
- The trial Judge had earlier convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the MV Act.
- The appellant was convicted for the aforementioned offences and sentenced to imprisonment and fines as follows: two months imprisonment and Rs. 1,000/- fine for Section 279 IPC; two years imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/- fine for Section 304-A IPC; and a fine of Rs. 500/-, or 10 days imprisonment in default, for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the MV Act.
- The appellant has already served more than 7 months of his substantive sentence.
- The prosecution alleged that the appellant drove his Wagon-R in a rash and negligent manner on a public way, causing the death of Manohar Shetkar.
- The appellant was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sections 279, 304(II) IPC, and Sections 3, 181, and 185 of the MV Act.
- The prosecution claimed that the appellant did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the incident.
- The appellant did not present any evidence in support of his defense and did not examine himself during the trial.
- The appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The prosecution examined a total of seven witnesses, including the investigating officer.
Also Read: Recovery of Misappropriated Temple Funds: Court’s Legal Analysis
Arguments
- Learned counsel argues that the evidence on record does not support conviction or sentencing.
- Claims that ocular evidence is unreliable and documentary evidence favors the appellant.
- Contends that the evidence suggesting high speed driving is vague and insufficient to prove rashness or negligence.
- Points out that the appellant had a learner’s license and was accompanied by his wife, who had a permanent license on the date of the incident.
- Highlights the wife’s testimony about the scooter overtaking a truck and colliding with the appellant’s vehicle, which was disregarded by the Sessions Court.
- Argues that the defense only needs to be probabalised, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Concludes that the upheld conviction is unsustainable and should be overturned.
- Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the order of conviction by the High Court.
- Respondent’s counsel did not significantly challenge appellant’s submissions on reducing the sentence.
Also Read: Legal Analysis in Assault and Homicide Case
Analysis
- The High Court’s order of conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for the appellant needs no interference from this Court.
- The appellant, appointed as a Peon on a temporary basis in the Directorate of Women & Child Development, Goa under a specific scheme, was found guilty of driving rashly and negligently resulting in the loss of a life.
- The appellant has been blessed with a girl child in February 2018.
- A compensation amount of Rs. 3 lakhs has been deposited by the appellant in the Registry of this Court as per the order.
- No allegation of the appellant being under the influence of alcohol or impairing substance at the time of the accident.
- The widow of the victim did not come forward despite notice being served.
- Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs has been deposited by the appellant.
- Lenient view recommended as it was a rash and negligent act, not driving under the influence which warrants stricter punishment.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Invalid Sale Deeds and Power of Attorney
Decision
- The appellant’s conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is maintained.
- The substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.
- Imposition of fine is affirmed.
- An amount of Rs. 3 lakhs deposited by the appellant as compensation will be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao for release to the widow of the deceased.
- Pending applications are disposed of.
- Bail bonds of the appellant, if any, are discharged.
Case Title: SAGAR LOLIENKAR Vs. THE STATE OF GOA (2021 INSC 761)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001415-001415 / 2021
