High Court dismissed criminal revision challenging conviction for rash and negligent driving. Court held that driving on wrong side sufficed for négligence and rejected arguments regarding mechanical defect evidence not raised in appeal.
Revision application dismissed; impugned judgment confirming conviction upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2008
SHRI RAMAKANT PARESKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE ... Respondent
Mr. Arun Bras De Sa,Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C.A. Ferriera, Public Prosecutor for the State.
Coram:R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
Date:8th February, 2008
P.C.
firstly, that the Lower Appellate Court erred in applying the principle of res ipsa locuitur without any basic evidence available about the rashness and negligence in driving of the vehicle by the appellant.
secondly, that the Lower Appellate Court failed to consider that the
prosecution had not led any evidence as to the point of time the vehicle had developed mechanical defect in relation to the steering rod and
thirdly, that the Lower Appellate Court did not analyse the evidence on record in proper prospective.
and has held that there is nothing on record to arrive at the conclusion that such defect had developed prior to the accident, no fault can be found with the said finding. In such cases, it cannot be heard to argue that the prosecution ought to have led further evidence in that regard, as regards the time of the development of the damage caused to the steering rod. If at all any such defect had developed prior to the accident, no one had prevented the driver, i.e. the petitioner, from taking appropriate steps either to remedy the same or to stop driving such vehicle. There is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant in that regard. In such circumstances, the prosecution cannot be blamed for not leading any further evidence in that aspect.
R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
SMA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under sections 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. for rash and negligent driving should be set aside due to lack of evidence regarding mechanical defects.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the lower court's findings that the vehicle was driven on the wrong side of the road.
Whether the prosecution discharged the burden of proving rash and negligent driving given the accused failed to rebut the evidence.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SHRI RAMAKANT PARESKAR
STATE
R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
