Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 404 (BOM)

Gajanan Rambhau Khade v. State of Maharashtra

2019-02-11

M.G.GIRATKAR

body2019
ORDER : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. Heard Shri. Chande, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel has submitted that evidence of eye-witnesses are not reliable, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. Shri. Gangane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has strongly supported both the judgments of Courts below. He has submitted that there are concurrent findings of Courts below. The applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was driving his tractor rashly and negligently, therefore, tractor turned turtle. Two persons viz. Baliram Sule and Sheetal Lahane died in said accident. Other eye-witnesses also sustained injuries. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On 14-1-2001 at about 11.30 a.m. accused was driving his tractor bearing No. MH-3-9323. When he reached outskirts of Village, Karanji, he allowed 8 to 10 women to board into the trolley of tractor. Those women were going to the temple of Gajanan Maharaj at Shirpur. He drove his tractor in high speed and, therefore, tractor turned turtle in between Village Karanji and Shirpur. Baliram Sule and Sheetal Pandhari Lahane died due to the accident. Other women who were travelling in the trolley also sustained injuries. Offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the accused. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. Learned trial Court framed the charge. Injured eye-witnesses were examined by the side of prosecution. As per the evidence of eye-witnesses P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, it is proved before the trial Court that accused was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, accident took place. Perusal of evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 shows that there is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. Learned trial Court has rightly recorded the findings and convicted the accused. First appellate Court after scrutinizing the evidence has rightly dismissed the appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision and it is liable to be dismissed. 4. At this stage, learned counsel Shri. Chande has submitted that accused has undergone jail sentence for about 15 days and he is ready to pay some amount of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. Accused is aged about 41 years. He is the only earning member in family. 5. 4. At this stage, learned counsel Shri. Chande has submitted that accused has undergone jail sentence for about 15 days and he is ready to pay some amount of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. Accused is aged about 41 years. He is the only earning member in family. 5. Punishment provided under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code is to the extent of six months and/or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or both. Punishment for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code may extend to two years and/or with fine or both. 6. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending the accused in jail. He has already undergone jail sentence of 15 days. He is ready to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the legal heirs of each deceased. He has already paid fine amount before the trial Court. Looking to the punishment provided under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, following order will meet the ends of justice. ORDER (i) Revision is partly allowed. (ii) Punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, however, sentence is modified as under: "Accused is convicted for the period already undergone in jail." (iii) Fine amount is already paid by the accused before the trial Court. Accused/applicant shall pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the legal heirs of each deceased, namely, Baliram Sule and Sheetal Pandhari Lahane. The accused/applicant is directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) before the trial Court within a period of two weeks. If the accused/applicant fails to deposit said amount within period of two weeks then he shall undergo the sentence as directed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. (iv) If accused/applicant deposits the amount of compensation as aforesaid, legal heirs of deceased, namely, Baliram Sule and Sheetal Pandhari Lahane are at liberty to withdraw the same. (v) The revision is disposed of in above terms.