The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of rash and negligent driving leading to accidents resulting in death and injuries, the prosecution must prove the rash and negligent act beyond all shadow of doubts. The court also emphasized the deterrence factor in sentencing for such offences.

1. By this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 4/2/1999 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in criminal appeal No. 46/98 affirming the judgment of conviction and modifying the order of sentence dated 20/4/1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in criminal case No. 391/97 whereby and where under after holding the applicant guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279,337,338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- & simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, while maintaining the conviction and sentence under Sections 304-A, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has modified and quashed the separate sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- passed for offence punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code has been set-aside.

2. As per case of the prosecution, on 2717/1994 at about 9:00 A.M. present applicant was driving Mini Bus bearing registration No. MP-24-C/1602 in public place. While driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, he caused accident of Mini Bus near Bagdai Bridge resulting into death of Sonbai, Sukwarobai, Vandana & Beeju Nair, caused grievous injury to Arun Shukla, Mahesh & Ku. Pramila and simple injury to Jyoti, Sunita, Pravesh, Harish nkar, S.P. Govardhan, Dilip Kumar, Devkibai, Bhuvneshwar, Alka, Sharad & Afzal Khan. First Information Report was lodged vide Ex. P-44. Marg intimation was recorded. Autopsy of dead persons namely Sonbai, Sukwarobai, Vandana & Beeju Nair were conducted and injured witnesses were also examined by doctors. Damaged Mini Bus was seized vide Ex. P-I. Papers relating to vehicle i.e. Mini Bus was seized vide Ex. P-2. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, case was subsequently transferred to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon.

3. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon convicted and sentenced the applicant as• aforementioned, same was challenged before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, while maintaining the conviction and sentence for other offences Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon has quashed the separate sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr. P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/non-applicant are heard.

5. Judgment of both the Courts below and record of both the Courts below perused.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that in the present case, prosecution has failed to prove rash and negligent act resulting into death of 4 persons, simple and grievous injury to other persons. Mere injury, death and accident are not offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A of the Indian Penal Code unless it is coupled with rash and negligent act of the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that present applicant was driving the vehicle carefully and cautiously, he has not caused any accident and speed of Mini Bus is normal and accident took place as a result of vismajor therefore, applicant is not liable for commission of aforesaid offence.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that present applicant was in custody since 4/2/1999 till his release i.e. till 15/2/1999 for about 11 days. Applicant is facing trial since 1994 for about 16 years. Considering the mental agony the period already undergone would be sufficient