The incident in question occurred on the 19th of April, 1993, when the applicant, a 39-year-old driver with a substantial record in public transport, was operating a Pune Municipal Transport (PMT) bus. While traveling on the Pune-Nagar road, the bus collided with a motorcycle, resulting in the death of the pillion rider, Umeshchandra Kuswah, and injuries to the motorcycle’s rider, PW-3. The motorcycle collided with the right side of the bus, damaging the bike's headlight and kick-start.

After the accident, both the injured were sent to the hospital, and a formal complaint was lodged. The subsequent investigation involved the examination of the bus and the motorcycle, and reports were filed by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO). Based on the investigation, the applicant was charged with offenses related to rash and negligent driving, which allegedly led to the death and injuries. The trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment for Section 279 IPC (rash driving), six months for Section 304(A) IPC (causing death by negligence), and a fine for the injuries under Section 337 IPC.

The crux of the revision application centered around the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence presented in court. The prosecution relied heavily on the deposition of the sole eyewitness, PW-3, who stated that the bus overtook a truck and collided with the motorcycle. However, discrepancies in the testimonies of key witnesses raised concerns. Notably, PW-1, the conductor of the bus, provided a conflicting account, stating that the motorcycle overtook a jeep before the collision, which was not corroborated by PW-3. The trial and appellate courts, however, chose to disregard this account, claiming the witness was biased due to his employment with the PMT.

The spot panchnama and RTO reports, which recorded the damages to both vehicles, further complicated the case. The PMT bus sustained only a dent and scratch on its right side, suggesting a less severe collision than what was described by the witnesses. Moreover, PW-3 admitted during cross-examination that he had maneuvered his motorcycle to the left side of the road before the collision, suggesting a degree of contributory negligence on his part. This aspect was overlooked by both the trial and appellate courts.

The revision application raised critical points regarding the failure of the courts to consider contributory negligence in the accident. Contributory negligence, a concept in criminal law, refers to situations where the victim's own actions contribute to the accident. In this case, the applicant's defense highlighted that the rider of the motorcycle (PW-3) had made a sudden and potentially hazardous move by overtaking a jeep and steering his motorcycle to the extreme left side of the road. Such actions, it was argued, should have been considered in evaluating the applicant's role in the accident.

Additionally, the prosecution's failure to examine the driver of the jeep that PW-3 overtook, or to seize the jeep involved, further weakened the case. Without this crucial evidence, the court could not definitively establish the fault of the PMT bus driver beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense also pointed out that the prosecution had not examined other potential eyewitnesses, such as passengers in the bus, to corroborate the account of PW-3.

After considering the contradictions in the evidence and the failure of the lower courts to address critical aspects of contributory negligence, the Court allowed the revision application. The judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court were quashed, and the conviction and sentences were set aside. This ruling underscores the importance of thoroughly examining all evidence and considering all possible factors, including contributory negligence, before passing a judgment in such cases.

This case serves as a reminder of the need for a balanced and careful assessment of evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases involving motor accidents. It also highlights the significance of considering contributory negligence when determining the degree of responsibility for an accident.