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.

JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Ms. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Mali, learned APP for State.

2. This Criminal Revision Application (for short “CRA”) takes exception to the twin judgments dated 28.02.2001 passed by the learned 28th Esplanade Court, Mumbai in CC No.40/P/98 and dated 18.06.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2001. Crime is registered under Section 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) against the Applicant. Applicant is a bus driver in the BEST. First Informant is a traffic police constable who lodged the complaint. Applicant is convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

3. As per order dated 17.07.2019 passed by this Court, Legal Aid Committee appointed Advocate Ms. Chitrali Deshmukh to represent and espouse the cause of the Applicant.

4. Briefly stated, as per prosecution’s case, on 02.12.1997 at about 6:45 p.m. BEST bus on Route No.66 was on its way from Chira Bazaar to Crawford market. It was driven by Applicant. The bus took left turn at the junction of JSS Road at Shamaldas Gandhi Marg and while taking the left turn it dashed with the deceased who fell down and became unconscious at that time. Applicant stopped the bus and with the aid and assistance of the conductor and PW-1 – first informant moved him to G.T. Hospital nearby, where he was declared dead on arrival. Thereafter PW-1 lodged FIR under CR No.152 of 1997 for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. According to prosecution, the double decker BEST bus bearing No. MH-01-H- 8197 was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 03.12.1997 and found to be in a good condition without any mechanical defect.

5. Prosecution led evidence of two witness viz; PW-1 - Traffic Police Constable Sadashiv Garde and PW-2 - Investigating Officer Kiran Kabadi. On 09.02.2000, charges were framed against Applicant under Sections 297 and 304A of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. Ms. Deshmukh, at the outset, informs the Court that Applicant was arrested on 18.06.2002. She would inform the Court that by order dated 26.06.2003 passed in the present CRA, Applicant was enlarged on bail after spending more than 2 months 8 days in prison.

6.1. She would draw my attention to the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 was the Traffic Inspector on duty at the traffic junction on the date of incident. He has stated that on 02.12.2019, he was given duty at Princess Street Junction from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. He has next stated that at about 6:45 p.m., one double decker BEST bus on route No.66 came from JSS Road and took left turn at Princess Street Junction towards Vardhman chowk and while taking the left turn, one person (deceased) was dashed by the bus and he fell down and was unconscious. He stated that he alongwith the conductor took the injured person to nearby GT Hospital when he was declared dead.

6.2. PW-2 the Investigating Officer in his deposition has stated that on 02.12.1997, he was doing his duty when he received telephonic message from GT Hospital that one person was injured by BEST Bus at the junction of JSS Road and Shamaldas Gandhi Marg. He has stated that he alongwith PI Khandagale immediately rushed to the hospital and recorded statement of PW-1 Traffic Constable Sadashiv Garde. He has stated that post-mortem of the deceased was done at J.J. hospital and after that the body of the deceased was handed over to his brother. He has also stated that BEST Bus No. MH-01-H-8197 was inspected by RTO and no mechanical defect was found with the same.

6.3. Ms. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant would submit that the judgments under challenge are unsustainable as they do not correctly appreciate the facts and evidence on record. She would submit that the real point of controversy in the present case has been completely ignored and neglected by