In criminal revision, the High Court examined the conviction and sentence imposed on an applicant for rash and negligent driving causing death under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The Court upheld the decisions of the Trial and Appeal courts.
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.
SSK/937
revn 46.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2012
Bajirao Sakharam Kurade ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Vinod Jadhav, advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
DATED : 21st FEBRUARY, 2012.
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
SSK/937
revn 46.12
2
was not rash and negligent while driving the vehicle in question, and therefore, he could not be convicted under the provisions of Section 279 read with Section 304-A of the IPC. This submission is without any merit, in view of the evidence on record. The evidence of the eye-witnesses along with the evidence of the pancha witness makes it abundantly clear
SSK/937 3 revn 46.12
that the applicant was rash and negligent. The Trial Court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and convicted the applicant. The Appeal court by re-appreciating the facts on record, confirmed the applicant’s conviction. After going through the judgment of the lower courts below, I do not find any merit in the revision application. The criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower courts erred in convicting the applicant for rash and negligent driving causing death.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bajirao Sakharam Kurade
The State of Maharashtra
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
