Concurrent findings on rash and negligent driving were upheld, with no ground for interference in appeal.

Concurrent findings that the bus driver caused the fatal accident by rash and negligent driving were supported by eye-witness testimony, investigation material and the appellant's own statement. The record showed that the deceased was crossing from the driver's right, yet the bus failed to maintain a proper lookout at the cross-road and struck the cycle, causing death. The Supreme Court held that interference with concurrent factual findings in appeal under Article 136 is justified only in rare cases of manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice, and no such exceptional circumstance was shown. The conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by rash or negligent driving was liable to be interfered with on the evidence.

Analysis: The evidence of the eye-witnesses, supported by the investigation materials and the appellant's own statement, established that the deceased was crossing the road from the appellant's right when the bus, instead of keeping a proper lookout at the cross-road, struck the cycle and caused the fatal injuries. The finding of negligence was concurrently recorded by the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court. In criminal matters, interference with concurrent findings of fact in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is confined to rare cases of manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice, and the record disclosed no such exceptional circumstance.

Conclusion: The conviction for negligent driving under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was rightly upheld and no interference was warranted.

---