IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the degree of negligence and rashness to establish offences under the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the distinction between rashness and negligence, and the need to prove culpable or gross negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Present revision application is filed by the revisionist – accused being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2006 by the Ld. 2nd Addl. (Ad-hoc) Sessions Judge at Navsari, Camp at Vansda confirming the judgment and order of conviction & order of sentence passed by Ld. JMFC, 1st Class dated 15.9.2006 passed in Criminal Case No. 564/2002, whereby the petitioner - org. Accused was convicted for offences punishable u/s. 279, 337 & 304-A of the IPC and respectively sentence for (i) simple 'imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 10 days in case of in default of payment of fine, (ii) simple imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs. 250/- and further S.I. of 10 days in case of default of payment of fine and (iii) simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs. 1000/- with further S.I. of 3 months in case of default of payment of amount of fine, under the said offences. The petitioner was ordered concurrently to undergo the said sentences as provided u/s. 71 of the Indian Penal Code, the revisionist – org. accused.

2. The short facts of the case are that it was the case of the prosecution that on 7.9.2002 at about 10.15 a.m. one Sanjaybhai Budhiyabhai Chaudhary and owner of Jeep bearing RTO Registration No.GJ 15/C 9573, Shri Dhirubhai Balubhai had gone to Khdkala for filling Diesel from Bhanar. That, they had taken stop at about 10.30 a.m. in the boundary of Khdkala. At that time, when they were standing beside the road for removing air, one Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing RTO Registration No. GJ 19/F 3283 driven by the present Applicant, driving in a rash and negligent manner, carrying two pillion riders, dashed from the back side on the driver side of the mudguard of the Jeep. That, on account of the said accident, the one pillion rider Shri Bhavsing Chhotubhai sustained serious injuries. The said pillion rider subsequently expired. The said Sanjaybhai Budhiyabhai Chaudhary lodged the complaint on 7.9.2002 at about 16.10 p.m. with Unai Outpost. On the basis of the said complaint, Vansda Police Station has registered complaint and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the Applicant for the offences punishable u/s. 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

2.1 Charge was framed and prosecution has examined total six witnesses, as also produced the ten number of documentary evidence. The learned trial Court having appreciated the said evidence recorded the finding as noted in the judgment which has been unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate Court and thus present revision is filed.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Gandhi would submit that there is no undeniable aspect that accident between the stationary jeep and the motorcycle has been taken place and the pillion rider has expired out of the said accident; but he would submit that looking to the provisions of Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC, the prosecution is required to prove criminal rashness and negligence. He would further submit that in the present case, none of the witnesses have deposed that accused was driving the motorcycle with rashness and negligence and therefore both the Courts below have committed serious error of law as well as understanding and analysis in the evidence. The impugned judgment is a flaw to the very basic connotation of rashness and negligence which is required to be proved to establish the offence under the Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC. He would further submit that according to the Inquest Panchnama though the accused applied the break, the motorcycle could not be stopped so there may be a mechanical defect in the motorcycle or at the most, there may be a judgment of error on the part of the accused which cannot be termed as rashness and negligence. He would further submit that no person would ride the vehicle knowing fully well that he will also get the injury in an accident and therefore