The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving under Section 304-A IPC, applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, while extending probation due to the petitioner's youth and lack of prior offenses.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. MEHARE, J.

1. The Petitioner, who had just completed 18 years at the time of the incident, has preferred the revision against the judgment and conviction passed in S.C.C. No.6499/2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Court No.9), Aurangabad dated 17.04.2019 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-10, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.102/2019 decided on 12.12.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case were that on 20.04.2013, the deceased was sitting on a fibre chair in front of her house. Her house was on the side of the road from Maruti Temple towards Sanjay Gandhi Market. At about 07.25 pm, the accused rode the motorbike without the registration number. He drove it rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased, who was sitting on the platform of her house. The road was 20 feet wide. The rough surface was led there in front of her house. She met with an accident. She was hospitalized. During treatment, she died. Her son/eyewitness lodged the report on 07.05.2013.

3. The Petitioner faced the trial for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/181, 50(1)/177 and 3, 4/180 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The prosecution examined the eyewitness, spot panch, and investigation officer. The Petitioner admitted the post-mortem report. The deceased had suffered a head injury and died due to complications following the said injury.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, appreciating the evidence and the spot of incident held the accused guilty of the above offences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge re-appreciated the evidence and maintained the judgment and order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.

5. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that the exact place of the accident was not proven. Considering the map, the incident is improbable. Referring to this map, he argued that there was nothing to believe that the Petitioner drove the vehicle rashly and negligently. Since there was a rough surface on the spot of the incident and the deceased was already suffering from some leg ailments, there was a great probability of falling down and sustaining an injury to her head. He further argued that the head injury was not caused due to the accident. The evidence of PW-4 Mandakini Mukund Atkare was relevant to believe that it was not an accidental injury but it was the injury caused due to the tap. He has referred to the post-mortem report and argued that unless the medical expert is examined, it is difficult to ascertain the exact cause of death. He argued that since the deceased was shifted from one hospital to another hospital, there was a great possibility of infection, and that may be the cause of death. He further argued that there was an inordinate delay of 17 days in lodging the F.I.R. There is a great possibility of falling the deceased as she was not able to walk without the walker. Referring to the spot of the incident, he raised the doubt on the eyewitness. He also argued that only the family members were examined as witnesses. The prosecution has skipped Independent witnesses. Hence, an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. The evidence was not sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner. In the alternative, he prayed that considering the age of the Petitioner at the time of the incident and his future, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act may be extended.

6. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of Prem Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2017 DGLS (SC) 1396, Vijay s/o Namdeorao Kute Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 BCI 391, Nithin Vs. State Rep by its Inspector of Police, Crl. R.C. No.939 of 2019 decided by the Madras High Court dated 01.02.2022 and Raghunath Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, 2006 Cri. L.J. 3211.

7. Per contra, learned APP has argued that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur also supports the prosecution in proving the case in addition to the