IMPORTANT POINT
Insufficient evidence of negligence or rashness led to the quashing of the conviction under IPC Sections 304-A and 279 and Motor Vehicles Act Section 184.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Revisionist herein takes exception to the judgment and order passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 20.01.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2007, arising out of the judgment and order passed by learned J.M.F.C. Sakri in S.T.C.C. No. 1331 of 2000 dated 16.08.2007 convicting revisionist for offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. In the afternoon of 20.09.2000, girl named Sunanda, who was walking towards village Devnagar, taluka Sakri, was hit by Gypsy vehicle driven by revisionist. According to prosecution, the vehicle was being driven in high speed and in rash and negligent manner, giving dash to the pedestrian girl, who died on the spot itself. On report of revisionist himself, crime was registered and investigated by PW4 API Gujar and revisionist was duly chargesheeted and tried by learned JMFC vide S.T.C.C. No. 1331 of 2000 and was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 of IPC as well as Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Exception was taken to the said judgment before Sessions Court vide Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2007, but the same came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2010. Hence, present revision.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Applicant:

4. Pointing to the evidence, learned counsel for revisionist would submit that, admittedly accident took place on the National Highway and moreover, on tarmac. Taking this Court through the evidence of PW2 Prakash, it is her submission that, though this witness claims to be an eye witness, deceased girl herself ran over the road. That, girl was said to be grazing horses. That, evidence of PW3 Zunkabai also suggests that on call given by her and PW2 to hurry up, the girl came across the vehicle driven by revisionist and the unfortunate accident took place. That, both, PW2 and PW3, who are star witnesses, admit a truck also passing on the road but in opposite direction. Therefore, it is submitted that, there is possibility that the girl, seeing the truck, hesitated and came towards the vehicle driven by revisionist.

5. Learned counsel pointed out that, revisionist himself had lodged report at police station. She emphasized that, in cases of road traffic accident, it is essential for prosecution to demonstrate and establish the exact spot of accident. But here, according to her, answers given by spot pancha (PW1) clearly show that spot was not drawn immediately and prosecution has not proved that accident took place merely because of rash or negligent driving by revisionist.

6. Taking this Court through the observations of both, trial court and first appellate court, it is her submission that there is incorrect appreciation of available evidence. Neither negligence nor rashness, which are sine qua non, are proved beyond reasonable doubt. That, learned trial court failed to appreciate that, any information given by revisionist at police station was inadmissible as was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. That, both courts below failed to appreciate such legal aspect and hence, learned counsel urges to interfere by allowing the appeal.

7. In the alternative, learned counsel would submit that, currently revisionist who is over 65 years of age, deserves to be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and moreover, he is ready to compensate the victim.

On behalf of the Respondent-State:

8. Supporting the judgment and orders passed by both, learned trial court as well as first appellate court, learned APP would submit that, there is no denial that revisionist was driving the offending vehicle in excessively high speed. The girl died on the spot on being hit by the said vehicle. There was disregard to the traffic on the road. Essential ingredients for attracting charges of Section 304-A and 279 of IPC being available, both courts below gave concurrent and reasoned findings. Hence, he prays to dismiss th