Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
Omprakash S/o. Munnalal Deshmukh - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Warora, Chandrapur - Non-Applicant
Criminal Revision Application No. 177 of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Sahil Umredkar, counsel for applicant.
Mr. C.A. Lokhande, APP for non-applicant/State.
Negligence requires evidence of a breach of duty; mere occurrence of an accident does not imply liability without proof of rash or negligent conduct.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, and 304-A - Conviction for rash and negligent driving - The applicant challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The prosecution failed to establish that the applicant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and the evidence did not support the conviction. (Paras 3, 10, 14)
(B) Negligence - Definition and standards - The court emphasized that negligence is not absolute but relative, requiring a standard of reasonable care. The mere occurrence of an accident does not imply negligence without evidence of a breach of duty. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was convicted for causing the death of a pedestrian due to alleged rash driving. The prosecution's case relied on eyewitness accounts, but the evidence was insufficient to prove the applicant's guilt. (Paras 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not provide adequate evidence to establish that the applicant was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident or that he acted negligently. (Paras 11, 14)
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant was driving the vehicle and whether there was sufficient evidence of rash and negligent driving. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence proving the applicant's driving and the lack of established negligence warranted the quashing of the conviction. (Paras 14)
Result: The criminal application is allowed, and the applicant is acquitted from the charges.
JUDGMENT :
[URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3. The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 24/03/2015 passed by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warora, in S.C.C. No. 420/2011, which is confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Warora, in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2015, by which the applicant is convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 79; in default further R.I. for one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 and fine of Rs. 500/-. Further the offence punishable under Section 308, R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The fine amount is already paid by the present applicant.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the informant Babulal Bhauraoji Atram was residing at Warora and Khuhi for labour work. Deceased Kishor Gawali was his friend. On 06/06/2011 at 12.13 p.m., he and Kishor Gawali were proceeding for labour work by walk, while they reached in front of Hotel City Point Warora. At that time, a truck bearing No. MH-34/AP/4157 came from the backside of the gate and gave dash to them. Due to which, he as well as his friend sustained the grievous injuries, and during the treatment, his friend Kishor succumbed to death. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime vide crime No. 103/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of IPC. During the investigation, the I.O. has also drawn the spot panchahnama and collected the details of the vehicle by issuing a letter to R.T.O. He also seized the vehicle involved in the accident, and after the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as far as the aspect of rash and negligent driving is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence; even the identification of the accused as a driver is not established by the prosecution. Learned trial Court as well as learned Sessions Court has not considered the same and wrongly convicted the applicant. He submitted that the trial Court framed the charge against the accused vide Exhibit 28, and in support of his prosecution, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses. None of the witnesses have stated that in what manner the vehicle was driven, whether it was in a speed or without taking due care and caution. Thus, aspect of the negligence itself is not proved by the prosecution as far as the involvement of the present applicant as a driver is also not established. When the applicant has applied for the return of the vehicle on Supatrnama, he is arrested. Thus, at the relevant time, it was the present applicant, who was driving the said truck itself is not established by the prosecution, and therefore, the conviction of the present applicant is not sustainable.
6. Learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that evidence of the informant, who is the eyewitness of the said incident himself, has established that it was the present applicant who was driving the said truck, and after the incident, he eloped from the spot of the incident. Thus, sufficient evidence is on record to show that it was the applicant who driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereafter eloped from the spot of the incident. The statements of the witnesses and their evidence sufficiently show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash informant and the deceased backside, in which the death of the deceased is caused. In view of that, the judgment of the trial Court and the Additional Sessions Judge is proper, and no interference is called for.
7. After hearing both sides, I have perused the evidence. P.W. 1 is an eyewitness of the said incident, who has narrated
