Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 980 (BOM)

Tatyarao v. State of Maharashtra

2014-04-16

A.I.S.CHEEMA

body2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. for Respondent, finally at the admission stage. 2. This Revision has been filed against the conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”). The Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No.8), Aurangabad in S.C.C. No.3625 of 2001, convicted the present Applicant under Section 279 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. also to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused/Applicant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) to injured complainant, Dr. Babu Nathaji More. In Criminal Appeal No.95 of 2009 the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Aurangabad partly allowed the Appeal. Conviction of Applicant was maintained and direction regarding imprisonment was modified so as to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section 279 of I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for two months under Section 337 of I.P.C. Remaining order of the trial Court was maintained. 3. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 8th September, 2001 at about 7.30 p.m. the incident took place on Beed road, going towards Aurangabad. The incident occurred near Nipani Shivar near land of one Chaudhari. One Dilip Bhausaheb Bankar gave intimation to police that a Jeep registration No.MH-20-U-1817 had dashed against a Tractor which was stationed in the middle of the road, which Tractor had a puncture. After the Jeep, one Dr. More also dashed against the Tractor who was proceeding on his Motorcycle and thus A.C. No.44 of 2001 came to be registered. Dr. Babu Nathaji More, on next day, filed First Information Report alleging that he was proceeding by his Motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-20-G-1460 and when he reached near Nipani, due to head light of another vehicle coming from the opposite direction, he could not see anything and his vehicle dashed with Tractor which was stationed in the middle of the road. It was alleged that the Tractor had neither indicator nor reflector nor tail lamp and no indication was given that the vehicle was stationed there. Complainant alleged that he also saw another vehicle Tata CR had dashed against the said Tractor. Complainant suffered injuries. It was alleged that the Tractor had neither indicator nor reflector nor tail lamp and no indication was given that the vehicle was stationed there. Complainant alleged that he also saw another vehicle Tata CR had dashed against the said Tractor. Complainant suffered injuries. It was also alleged that the said Tractor was bearing registration No.MH-20-V-7423, and had a Trolley bearing registration No.MH-20-V-8443 and even the Trolley had no reflector or indicator and Tractor was stationed in the centre of the road. 4. It appears from the record that matter was investigated and the chargesheet came to be filed. Before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, PW-1 Prakash Mahajan was examined. He was travelling in the Jeep which had dashed against the Tractor. PW-3 was complainant Dr. Babu More, who was proceeding on his Motorcycle and who got injured due to dash to the Tractor stationed in the middle of the road. PW-2 Tukaram Mohite was investigating officer and PW-4 Dr. Yeshwant Vasantrao Gade Patil was the witness who clinically examined complainant Dr. More and issued injury certificate. 5. To analyse the evidence which was brought before the Judicial Magistrate, the Judicial Magistrate considered the Panchnama Exhibit 12 and found that it was road which was having width of 50 feet. 30 feet was tar road and there was "kachha" road of 10 feet each on both sides. Reference was made to Panchnama to note that Tractor and Trolley were stationed in the middle of the road. The Judicial Magistrate considered that even if the Tractor had a puncture, ordinary prudent person would see that the vehicle is parked on the "kachha" portion of the road and not in the middle of the road. The Judicial Magistrate referred to the evidence of witnesses which shows that Tractor or Trolley had no reflectors, indicators or lights. The evidence of PW-1 Prakash and PW-2 Tukaram Mohite, Investigating Officer was considered to find that it was present Applicant-accused who was driving the Tractor and the evidence of Investigating Officer had gone unchallenged. The Judicial Magistrate concluded that the manner in which the Tractor was driven and parked in the middle of the road, amounted to negligence. The Judicial Magistrate, keeping in view theory of deterrence and compensation, awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months to the accused and compensation for victim. 6. The Judicial Magistrate concluded that the manner in which the Tractor was driven and parked in the middle of the road, amounted to negligence. The Judicial Magistrate, keeping in view theory of deterrence and compensation, awarded sentence of imprisonment of six months to the accused and compensation for victim. 6. The Sessions Judge went through the evidence referred above and came to similar conclusion that the vehicle was left in the middle of the road in negligent manner and because of that vehicle in which PW-1 was travelling and the vehicle of PW-3, dashed to the Tractor and thus the incident had occurred. 7. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that it was not proved that it was the present Applicant who was driving the Tractor. However, the record shows that it has come in the evidence of PW-1 Prakash, PW-2 Tukaram Mohite that present Applicant was driving the said Tractor and the evidence on this count had gone unchallenged. 8. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that looking to the fact that complainant had minor injuries and the fact that the Applicant had, during the pendency of the Criminal Case, remained in custody for about ten days and now has been behind bars since 20th March 2014, lenient view may be taken and Applicant may be released for the period already undergone. 9. The learned A.P.P. however, opposed the request of the learned counsel of the Applicant claiming that there are concurrent findings and evidence is reliable. 10. The Tractor was driven, in a negligent manner by bringing it on road and letting it be stationed in the middle of the road. Record shows that it was evening time and it was raining at the time of incident. Due to head light of vehicle from the opposite side PW-3 had momentary difficulty in seeing (apparently it was dark), and the incident occurred. The manner in which the Tractor was left in the middle of the road without any reflectors or indicators or lights, amounts to dangerous way of driving which has to be held as criminal negligence. 11. Even if the vehicle got punctured, it had to be taken to "kachha" portion of the road and should have been stationed only there. Even after that, it would be necessary to put up warning signs with reflectors indicating that the vehicle is stationed there. 11. Even if the vehicle got punctured, it had to be taken to "kachha" portion of the road and should have been stationed only there. Even after that, it would be necessary to put up warning signs with reflectors indicating that the vehicle is stationed there. The Tractor and Trolley on their bodies did not have reflectors or parking lights and leaving such vehicle in middle of the road, amounts to driving vehicle in a negligent manner. While moving on road even if the Accused felt that the vehicle had developed puncture, he could not have stopped in the middle of the road. It was his duty to go to extreme left on "kachha" portion, stop, and then check. I find that offence under Section 279 and 337 of the I.P.C. was proved and rightly so held by the Courts below. 12. I find that the Judicial Magistrate had approached the matter in a correct manner that such type of driving of vehicle attracts deterrent punishment. Such casual approach of Accused where he does not care for lives of others, does not deserve leniency. However, the Additional Sessions Judge took a lenient view and reduced the term of imprisonment, and the State has not filed any proceeding challenging the leniency shown. For such reasons, I am not interfering in the order of the Sessions Judge. I find that this is not a case where any further leniency needs to be shown as requested by Advocate of the Accused. 13. There is no substance in the Revision Application. Nothing is shown that the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Court are not maintainable or the same are illegal, incorrect or improper. The Criminal Revision Application stands rejected.