1. Driver convicted under Section 304-A IPC for causing death by rash and negligent driving — subsequent acquittal by High Court in revision. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 262
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : S.R.Babu
State Of A.P.
Versus
Rajagopala Rao
Case No. : 256 of 1999
Date of Decision : 2/26/99
A High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot set aside concurrent findings of lower courts through a non-speaking judgment; it must provide a reasoned order indicating how the lower courts erred and must consider the evidence on record.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-A - Causing death by negligence - High Court in revisional jurisdiction - Upsetting concurrent findings of lower courts - Requirement of a reasoned order - Non-speaking judgment - High Court cannot set aside conviction and sentence without considering evidence on record or indicating how lower courts erred in their conclusions. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A driver of a bus was prosecuted and convicted for causing death by negligence. The trial court sentenced the accused to one year of rigorous imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced to three months by the Sessions Court. On a revision petition, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused, stating there was no acceptable evidence of rash and negligent driving.
Findings of Court:
The High Court, while exercising revisional powers, upset concurrent findings of the lower courts without considering the evidence on record or explaining the errors in the lower courts' conclusions. The judgment was found to be non-speaking as it contained no reasons for allowing the revision.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by upsetting concurrent findings of the lower courts through a non-speaking judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: A High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot upset concurrent findings of the courts below without providing reasons or demonstrating how the lower courts erred in their conclusions. A non-speaking judgment is not sustainable in law.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court could set aside concurrent findings of conviction without providing reasons or analyzing the evidence on record. (Para 4 )
3. High Court upset concurrent findings without considering evidence or explaining errors of lower courts, rendering the judgment non-speaking. (Para 4 )
4. Revisional courts must provide reasoned orders and demonstrate specific errors in lower court findings before upsetting concurrent conclusions. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — revision restored for disposal by a reasoned order. (Para 5 )
6. Can a revisional court set aside concurrent findings of lower courts without providing reasons?
No. A revisional court cannot upset concurrent findings without considering the evidence on record and indicating how the lower courts erred in their conclusions. (Para 4 )
7. What constitutes a non-speaking judgment in the context of revisional powers?
A non-speaking judgment is one that contains no reasons to indicate why a petition was allowed or how the lower courts' findings were incorrect. (Para 4 )
B.N.KIRPAL, J.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE respondent was a driver of an RTC bus. It met with an accident which resulted in the death of one person.
(3) THE respondent was prosecuted and convicted by the Magistrate under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, reduced the sentence to three months. A revision petition was filed in the High Court and the High Court allowed the same by observing as follows:
"I perused the entire evidence available on record and also the judgments of the lower courts. There is no acceptable evidence to indicate that the petitioner-accused was responsible for causing the accident and that he drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. I do not find any ground to convict the accused basing on the little evidence available. Therefore the criminal revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts are set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the offence with which he is charged."
(4) THE High Court in exercise of its revisional power has upset the concurrent findings of the courts below without in any way considering the evidence on the record and without indicating as to in what manner the courts below had erred in coming to the conclusion which they had arrived at. The judgment of the High Court contains no reasons whatsoever which would indicate as to why the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. In a sense, it is a non-speaking judgment.
(5) WE, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, restore Criminal Revision Case No. 692 of 1995 and direct the High Court to dispose of the same in accordance with law by a reasoned order.
(6) NO costs.
