IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established the need to prove criminal rashness and negligence, emphasizing the distinction between negligence and rashness, and the requirement to link the accused's alleged drunken state with the offense of rashness and negligence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present revision application u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner – accused being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2007 by the Ld. 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat dated 22.11.2012 confirming the judgment and order of conviction & order of sentence passed by Ld. JMFC, Mandvi dated 21.7.2007 passed in Criminal Case No. 162/2005, whereby the petitioner - org. Accused was convicted for offences punishable u/s. 279, 337 & 304-A r/w 338 of the IPC and respectively sentence for (i) simple 'imprisonment of 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of in default of payment of fine, (ii) simple imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of default of payment of fine and (iii) simple imprisonment of one and half years with fine of Rs. 2000/- with further S.I. of 06 months in case of default of payment of amount of fine, under the said offences. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence puinishable u/s 184 of the MV Act and sentenced for simple imprisonment of 2 months with fine of Rs. 500/- and further S.I. of 01 month in case of default of payment of fine and simple imprisonment of 3 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and further S.I. of 03 months in case of default of payment of fine as far as offence punishable u/s 185 of the MV Act. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the present accused was driver of SRP Group - 10 Roopnagar Valia and he along with his staff member, on the date of the incident went to Songadh Treasury office in a vehicle bearing No. GJ-16 G-393and at the time of returned from Songadh to Valia, on Ukai Mandvi road at about 5.30 hours the accused draw the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and in a drunk condition and he lost the control over the vehicle and the vehicle was dashed with the tree and one Raju Prasad Aahir sitting in the said vehicle died on the spot and one Joraram Bisnoy died during the treatment and other persons of the staff sitting the vehicle sustained injuries.

3. Charge was framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was returned for recording the prosecution evidence. In all, the prosecution has examined total 13 witnesses, as also produced the 11 number of documentary evidence. The learned trial Court having appreciated the said evidence recorded the finding as noted in the judgment culminated in conviction as stated supra followed by imposition of punishment as above, which has been unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate Court and thus present revision is filed.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the concurrent judgments of the courts below would submit that the the learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The learned Courts below could have kept the distance between the rash and negligent driving. She would further submit that none of the eye witnesses stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle recklessly and negligently with the knowledge that his driving would cause endanger to the human life. She would further submit that the learned Courts below have committed serious error in understanding the law as well as understanding the facts and to analyze the evidence. In that background, she would further 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. 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. She 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 question of intention would not come in a way, but the learned C