Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.M. BADAR, J.
The State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Uttam Vasant Mane - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1999
Decided on : 25-04-2016
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-A-Rash and negligent driving of vehicle-Proof of.-In instant case, a girl child aged 1-1/2 years was killed in accident. Where eye- witness himself, in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he was at rear of vehicle whereas victim was at front of vehicle, in such circumstances, trial Court was held to be justified in acquitting appellant in absence of reliable evidence.
It is hard to believe that driver would drive the jeep by keeping it in motion and at the same time would speak with the outsiders. The trial Court further doubted presence of this witness on the scene of offence by holding that neither PW 6 nor PW 3 had named this person as an eye-witness to the incident in question. PW 6 had categorically deposed that the only person present at the spot witnessing the accident. With this material on record, the conclusion of the trial Court that presence of PW 7 on the spot and he witnessing the incident is doubtful, cannot be said to be improbable view of the trial Court.
So far other witnesses are concerned, they are not eye-witness to the incident in question. As such, their evidence is of no assistance to come to the conclusion that the accident had happened because of the dangerous as well as rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by the respondent/ accused, causing death of `B` alias `S`.
The view taken by the trial Court as such cannot be said to be unreasonable and perverse view of the evidence on record while acquitting the respondent/ accused. No compelling or substantial reasons can be seen from the evidence available on record to disturb the finding of acquittal of the respondent/accused recorded by the J.M.F.C. Tasgaon. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-A-Rash and negligent driving of vehicle-Proof of.-The material elicited from the evidence of PW 6 in the cross-examination makes it difficult to assign rashness or negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle in causing the accident.
It is in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 10.45 to 11.00 a.m. while he was doing his business by standing at the handcart, a jeep came from Turuchi side and a girl came under the said vehicle. He deposed that at the time of the accident, the girl was proceeding ahead of the jeep and the driver of the jeep was talking to somebody by leaning out of the said jeep. Let Court examine what this witness has deposed in his cross-examination. His cross-examination reveals that he was behind the jeep and the victim girl was in front of the jeep. He admitted in his cross-examination that nobody was talking with the driver of the jeep at the time of the incident in question. His cross-examination shows that except him, nobody else was present at the spot of incident.
Cross-examination of this witness as such makes it clear that the driver of the jeep was not talking with anybody while driving the jeep as claimed by him in chief-examination. As this witness was behind the jeep, he was not in a position to witness what was happening ahead of the jeep. It can be said that that PW 6 at the most had witnessed the accident while being at the backside of the jeep. This material elicited from this witness in the cross-examination makes it difficult to assign rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in causing the accident.
A.M. Badar, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Tasgaon, District Sangli in Summary Criminal Case No.219/1996 decided on 21st September, 1998, thereby acquitting the accused for offences punishable under section 304A of the Indian Penal, 1860 and section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Facts in brief leading to the institution of the present case can be summarised as under:-
(a) PW1 Shankar Ekanath Patil is the maternal grandfather of deceased Banti @ Sadhana Sankpal. He set the criminal law in motion on 28th February, 1996 alleging that by rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing registration No.MH-10/C-366, the respondent/accused caused the death of said Banti @ Sadhana Sankap, a child, aged about 1½ years.
(b) According to the prosecution case, the daughter of informant Shankar Patil came to his house for the purpose of delivery. She was accompanied by her children. On 28th February, 1996 on of her child namely, Banti was playing in the vicinity of the house of her maternal grand-father Shankar Patil (PW1). At that time, a jeep bearing registration No.MH-10/C-366 driven by respondent-accused came in a rash and negligent manner from the side of Turuchi village and gave dash to the Banti Sankpal causing her instantaneous death. The accident was disclosed to informant Shankar Patil by one Jaywant Patil and after visiting the spot, informant PW1 Shivaji Patil lodged report of the accident with police station, Tasgaon resulting in registration of the Crime bearing No.43/1996 against the respondent/accused. The dead body of Banti was then sent for autopsy. Panchanama of the spot of incident was recorded. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of routine investigation, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to be filed. Accordingly, Summary Case bearing No.219/2016 came to be registered.
(c) Particulars of the offence came to be explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(d) In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Informant Shankar Ekanath Patil was examined as PW1 at Exhibit-17. The F.I.R. lodged by him is at Exhibit-18. Vasant Anant Joshit was examined as PW2 at Exhibit-19. He visited the spot soon after the accident. Babasaheb Maruti Patil was examined as PW3 at Exhibit-20. He is a panch witness to the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama. Dr.Mahesh Sadashiv Welnenkar, the autopsy surgeon is examined as PW4 at Exhibit-25. The post mortem report is at Exhibit-26. Sanjay Pundlikrao Rawal, Inspector of motor vehicles is examined as PW5 at Exhibit-19. He has examined the jeep alleged involved in the accident. Shakil Shamshuddin Mulla, an eye witness to the accident is examined as PW6 at Exhibit-32. Baburao Mahadeo Sankpal, paternal grand-father of deceased Banti, who also claims to be an eye witness is examined as PW7 at Exhibit-34. PW8 Vishwajit Narayan Bulbule is the Investigating Officer of the crime in question.
(e) After hearing the parties, the learned J.M.F.C. Tasgaon by the impugned judgment and order dated 21st September, 1998 was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused for offences punishable under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act by granting benefit of doubt to him.
3. Heard Mrs.Sonawane, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. She vehemently argued that evidence of PW6 Shakil Mulla and PW7 Baburao Sankpal is sufficient to hold that the respondent/accused was driving the jeep in question in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused death of Banti Sankpal. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to disbelieve the trust-worthy account of the incident in question coming from the mouth of PW6 Shakil Mulla and
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
