IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV, J
Presenjeet Manabendra Sen – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
REVN/76/2023
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 304-A - Criminal Revision Application challenging conviction under IPC for rash and negligent driving resulting in death - Evidence insufficient to prove Applicant was driving the vehicle; prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
Applicant convicted for causing death by negligent driving; prosecution case based on witness statements and circumstantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Applicant was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.
Issues: Whether the Applicant was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and whether the prosecution established rashness or negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the evidence presented did not conclusively prove the Applicant's involvement in the alleged negligent driving, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution's case was inadequate.
Result: Conviction and sentence of Applicant set aside.
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:-
"1. This is an application for listing the Criminal Revision Application for final hearing.
2. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is a young man with good qualification. He is serving in the I.T. Sector. Because of the pending Revision Application, he is not getting a job; and these are the prime years of his career and life, therefore, it is necessary that the Revision Application is decided on merits at the earliest.
3. Considering these submissions, the Revision Application be added to the weekly final hearing board commencing from 11.12.2023. The record and proceedings be called for. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly."
3. In view of the above, I heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP on 10.12.2024, when final arguments were concluded.
4. Prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:-
4.1. According to prosecution, on 17.03.2018 at about 9:00 pm, one Mr. Ramsaware Balraj Pal (PW-3) and his maternal uncle Bachhalal, both residents of Chaudhari Nagar, Bhosari, Pune were proceeding on two different bicycles from Santnagar Chowk to Godown Chowk via Spine Road. At that time, somewhere near Jai Ganesh Samrajya Chowk one i-20 car bearing No. KA-03-AE-7760 dashed the bicycle of Bachhalal Pal from behind thereby resulting in his fall on the road and he sustaining serious injuries. Prosecution case is that Applicant was driving the car. Alongwith Applicant, Mr. Shubhankar Bairani, Ms. Uttara Rashinkar and Ms. Bhumika Sharma were the other co-passengers in the car. They immediately carried Bachhalal in their car to Sant Dnyaneshwar Hospital for receiving treatment for his injuries. Bachhalal was admitted to the hospital for treatment. Ramsaware Pal informed Bachhalal’s father Amrutlal about the incident. Amrutlal visited Bachhalal and met him in the hospital on 20.03.2018 after arriving from his village in District Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh. He lodged Report against Applicant in MIDC Police Station on 20.03.2018. Initially offence was registered under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and Section 119 readwith 117 and 184 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”). However on 20.03.2018, Bachhalal succumbed to his injuries due to which Section 304-A of IPC was added. Applicant was arrested on 20.03.2018 and subsequently released on bail. Charges were framed against Applicant below Exhibit
“14” for offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections. He pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. His statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) was recorded below Exhibit “31”. His defence before the Trial Court was that he was not driving the car since the car was a hired car and at the time of incident an unknown driver was driving the car. He stated that the car was not being driven in high speed when it dashed the bicycle of Bachhalal from behind.
5. Mr. Joshi, learned Adv
Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karamasey Kunvargi Tak & Ors.
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....
Conviction for negligent driving requires substantial evidence beyond mere speed; a driver cannot be held liable under IPC without evidence proving rashness and negligence distinctly.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.