Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.M. BADAR, J.
Mr. Vimanjan Hanumanta Devarkonda - Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.91 OF 2017
Decided On : 10-04-2017
For the Applicant :Mr. Ravi L. Gurnani with Mr. Vijay Agale, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.H. Gaikwad-Patil, APP.
Important Point - This act is certainly negligent as well as rash because it depicts lack of due care and attention.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 304-A and 337-M.V. Act, Sections 134(a), (b) and 187-Conviction for rash and negligent driving.-Accused driving vehicle rashly and negligently, caused death of one person and injuries to other, rightly convicted by Courts below.
The incident in question, as seen from the witnesses` examination by the prosecution, whose presence on the scene of occurrence was natural, took place on the foot path abutting the road. The Maruti van crossed the road and came on the foot path giving dash to the deceased `S` and her son PW No. 3 `A`. The standard which needs to be applied in such case is that of a prudent person acting in a similar situation. By no stretch of imagination, one will say that a prudent person would drive a Maruti van in such a way to take it on the foot path of the road. This act is certainly negligent as well as rash because it depicts lack of due care and attention. Therefore, no infirmity can be found in conviction of the revision petitioner of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, as seen from the evidence of witnesses that he instead of providing medical aid to the injured as well as `S` who was found to be dead after the incident, fled from the spot of the incident. As such, the offence punishable under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V. Act is also made out by the prosecution.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 304-A and 337-M.V. Act, Sections 136(a), (b) and 187-Conviction under.-Accused, driving vehicle rashly and negligently, causing death of one person sitting on footpath and injuries to other, rightly convicted.
1. By this revision petition, the revision petitioner/ original accused is challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.882 of 2014 on 3rd January 2017 thereby dismissing his appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 02/09/2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla in C.C.No.356/PW/2000 convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for the sake of brevity) and under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (“M.V.Act” for the sake of brevity). The learned trial Magistrate upon conviction of the revision petitioner had sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months apart from payment of fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year apart from payment of fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 29/03/2000, the revision petitioner/accused had driven a Maruti van bearing No.MH-02-JA-228 in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash of that vehicle to Sugrabi and her son Abdul Rafiq. The incident, according to the prosecution case, took place near Halav bridge of Kurla in front of Kudiya Badlu Chawl. The FIR (Exh.5) of the crime in question came to be lodged by P.W.No.1 Yasmin Abdul Khalid on 29/03/2000 itself. Accordingly Crime Registration No.72 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC and under Sections 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act came to be registered. The revision petitioner/accused came to be arrested on 30/03/2000. Spot was inspected and spot panchanama came to be drawn. On completion of routine investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and after due trial conviction came to be recorded in C.C.No.356/PW/2000 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla on 02/09/2014. The accused came to be sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused filed an appeal bearing No.882 of 2014 which came to be dismissed on 03/01/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai by the impugned Judgment and Order.
3. I heard the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner/original accused. He argued that according to the prosecution case, the incident in question took place on 29/03/2000 at about 11.30 p.m. There is no evidence regarding availability of light on the spot of incident. There were in all five persons in the vehicle. It is the case of prosecution that nobody was apprehended on the spot of the incident. Hence, in submission of the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, evidence regarding identification of the revision petitioner is highly doubtful. He further argued that prosecution witnesses were not knowing the accused and no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. Hence, offence is not proved. It is further argued that there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner was under influence of the liquor as stated by the witnesses for the prosecution. It is further argued that the prosecution has examined P.W.No.6 Raju – owner of the Maruti va
