Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MILIND N.JADHAV
Presenjeet Manabendra Sen – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Criminal Revision Application (for short "CRA") challenges the twin judgments passed by Trial Court and Sessions Court. Applicant has filed the present Revision to challenge judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, Pune (for short “JMFC”) in Summary Criminal Case (for short “SCC”) No.1164 of 2018 whereby Applicant is convicted under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment (for short "R.I.") for three months alongwith payment of fine of Rs.500/-. Applicant is also convicted under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one month. Thereafter, Applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.154 of 2021 before the Sessions Judge, Pune which has confirmed the conviction and sentence above by its judgment dated 24.03.2023 (impugned judgment).
2. This Court (Coram: Sarang V. Kotwal, J) on 27.10.2023 passed the following order in Interim Application No.3928 of 2023 filed in present CRA:-
2. Learned couns
Important Point :The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle negligently, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were the direct cause of the accident, considering contributory negligence in criminal cases.
The court upheld the conviction for negligent driving resulting in death, emphasizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the inapplicability of probation for serious traffic offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence, must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonab....
Rash driving or riding on a public way – There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be ....
Evidence given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, when the witness is dead, is relevant for the purpose of proving the matter, provide....
Negligence requires evidence of a breach of duty; mere occurrence of an accident does not imply liability without proof of rash or negligent conduct.
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
