https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301239 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. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2023 18:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301239 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301239