Appeal against acquittal in a rash and negligent driving case resulting in death. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to positively identify the vehicle or the accused, and unsubstantiated delays in witness statements created doubt.
The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appeal-75-2004.doc
Chitra Sonawane.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.75 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra…Appellant.
(Orig.Complainant)
Versus
Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY SANJAY SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2023.09.15 14:37:46 +0530
Gopal Ramesh Sonawane
Age: 28 yrs. Occ: Service
R/at R &D. Colony,
Room No.341, Pune Alandi Road,
Pune…
…
Respondent.
(Orig. Accused)
Mr AA Palkar, APP for appellant/State.
Mr Pratik Deshmukh i/by S.P. Kadam for respondent.
Coram : R.N.Laddha,J.
Date : 15 September 2023.
Judgment :
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order
dated 21.05.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Khadki, Pune, in Criminal Case No.1318 of 2001,
whereby the accused/respondent came to be acquitted of the
offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 119/177 and
Page No. 1 of 9 ____________________________________________ 15 September 2023.
Chitra Sonawane. Appeal-75-2004.doc
132(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act).
2.The prosecution alleges that on 15.8.2001, Sadhana
Tanaji Mane was riding her Sunny Moped to attend a flag
hoisting ceremony. Around 7.30 a.m., as she was passing the
MI room gate on Pune Alandi road, a military vehicle collided
with her Moped, causing her to fall. She was initially taken to
a Military Hospital and then shifted to Sassoon Hospital due
to the severity of her injuries, where she later passed away.
The police were informed and found the Moped at the scene
of the accident. An inquest panchanama was prepared
following her death. During the investigation, witness
statements were recorded by the investigating officer. On
23.8.2001, Ramchandra Krishnarao Suryavanshi provided the
police with the number of the previously unidentified vehicle
involved in the accident. The driver was subsequently
arrested. After the investigation was completed and the
driver’s involvement was established, a charge sheet was filed.
3.Charge came to be framed against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC
read with Sections 119/177 and 132(1)(c) of the MV Act. The
accused abjured his guilt and claimed trial.
Page No. 2 of 9
15 September 2023.
Chitra Sonawane. Appeal-75-2004.doc
4.At the trial, to substantiate the indictment against the
accused, the learned trial Court recorded the evidence of
witnesses, namely Tanaji Tukaram Mane (PW 1), the husband
of the deceased; Ramchandra Krishnarao Suryavanshi (PW 2),
an eye witness to the incident; Shahaji Shankar Patil (PW 3),
an alleged eye witness and conductor of the offending vehicle;
Ashok Dashrath Gaikwad (PW 4),the investigating officer;
Kalleshwar Mahadeo Kamble (PW 5), the PHC who prepared
panchanama of the spot of incident and shifted the injured to
Sassoon hospital and Harbhajan Singh Gopal Singh Tattar
(PW 6), Security Officer. The prosecution has also placed
reliance on certain documents viz. complaint (Exh.39);
inquest panchanama (Exh.44); report forwarded along with
dead body of post mortem (Exh.45); cause of death certificate
(Exh.46); panchanama of spot of incident (Exh.28); post
mortem report (Exh.29); RTO report of Military bus and
Sunny Moped (Exh.32 and 33, respectively).
5.The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be thereafter
recorded, consisting of a denial and false implication. The
accused had examined none in his defence.
Page No. 3 of 9 ____________________________________________ 15 September 2023.
Appeal-75-2004.doc
Chitra Sonawane.
6.Upon reviewing the evidence and documents presented
and after hearing both sides, the trial Court was persuaded to
acquit the accused. It held that there was insufficient proof to
confirm the identity of the vehicle and the accused as the
driver of the alleged vehicle involved in the incident.
Consequently, due to the uncertainties in the prosecution’s
evidence, the accused was acquitted, benefiting from the
principle of “benefit of doubt”.
7.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant/State has
preferred this appeal.
8.I have heard Mr.AA Palkar, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State and Mr.Pratik Deshmukh, the learned
Counsel for the accused/respondent and perused the
impugned judgment, grounds in the appeal memo, evidence of
the prosecution witnesses and the entire material on record.
9.Mr.A.A.Palkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
argued that the order of acquittal was not in accordance with
the law. He asserted that the available evidence undeniably
points to the rash and negligent driving by the accused, which
____________________________________________ 15 September 2023.
Chitra Sonawane. Appeal-75-2004.doc
directly resulted in the death of the deceased. He submits that
the circumstances at the scene, as borne out by the evidence,
establish the guilt of the accused beyond any doubt.
10. On the other hand, Mr Pratik Deshmukh, the learned
Counsel for the accused/respondent, questioned the very
identification of the offending vehicle and the accused as its
driver. He pointed out that there was an unexplained delay in
recording the statement of an alleged eyewitness (PW 2). He
argued that the conclusions drawn by the learned Magistrate
were impeccable. He endorsed the Judgment and argued that
after appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned
Magistrate rightly acquitted the accused-respondent.
11. The records indicate that the defence did not seriously
dispute the alleged accident or the death of the deceased,
Sadhana Mane, before the trial Court. The fact that Sadhana
was injured in the accident and subsequently died in the
hospital was not contested.
12. This takes me to the pivotal issue of identifying the
offending vehicle and its driver on which the fate of this
appeal hinges. Ramchandra Suryavanshi (PW 2) testified that
Page No. 5 of 9
15 September 2023.
Chitra Sonawane. Appeal-75-2004.doc
around 7.30 a.m. on 15.08.2001, while he was riding his
motorcycle near the BEG MI room on Pune Alandi road, he
witnessed a military school bus bearing registration No.92 D
92238 driven by the accused, hit the deceased. After the
accident, she was rushed to the MI room hospital. Though
the prosecution alleges that the deceased was riding a Moped
at the time of the accident, however, PW 2’s testimony does
not shed light on this aspect.
13. Regarding the identification of the vehicle involved in
the incident, it is claimed by the prosecution that Ramchandra
(PW 2) provided the vehicle’s number to the investigating
officer, which led to the discovery of the accused. However,
Ramchandra’s (PW 2) testimony revealed a discrepancy in the
registration number of the offending vehicle. Furthermore, he
did not provide a description of the accused to the police.
The initial complaint was filed against an unidentified
individual. According to the prosecution, Ramchandra (PW
2) noted down the vehicle’s registration number in his diary
immediately after the incident, but this diary was not seized
by the investigating officer.
Page No. 6 of 9
15 September 2023.
Chitra Sonawane. Appeal-75-2004.doc
14. Furthermore, Ramchandra (PW 2) did not report the
incident to the police immediately after it occurred. Instead,
he traveled to Satara and informed the police about eight days
after the incident, at which point his statement was recorded.
The delay in recording Ramchandra’s (PW 2) statement has
not been explained satisfactorily.
15. The investigating officer recorded a statement of
Ramchandra (PW 2) on 23.8.2001 in which he disclosed the
registration number of the vehicle involved in the incident
and the accused. Interestingly, the investigating officer had
already recorded a statement of the accused two days earlier,
on 21.8.2001. It remains unclear how the investigating
officer was able to determine the registration number of the
vehicle involved and the identity of the accused that too prior
to the recording the statement of Ramchandra (PW 2).
Additionally, the investigating officer did not prepare a
panchnama of the offending vehicle or seize its logbook.
16. Shahaji Patil (PW 3), another alleged eye witness, did
not support the prosecution’s case and turned hostile. It is
worth noting that none of the other witnesses examined by
the prosecution actually witnessed the incident.
Page No. 7 of 9 ____________________________________________ 15 September 2023.
Chitra Sonawane. Appeal-75-2004.doc
17. The prosecution witnesses’ cross-examination revealed
that Pune-Alandi road, where the incident occurred, is a
bustling thoroughfare. The location is surrounded by various
military offices, and military vehicles frequently traverse this
route. The Sapras police chowky is a mere two-minute
distance from the incident site, yet PW 2 failed to inform the
police about the accident promptly.
18. Moreover, there is no proof of rash or negligent driving.
The mere occurrence of an accident does not automatically
imply rash or negligent driving. The linchpin of the offence is
not the factum of the accident but the culpable negligence or
rashness which led to the accident. On the basis of the
material on record, it is not possible to find out the
circumstances under which the accident took place. Given
that the vehicle involved and the accused have not been
identified, there is no basis for alleging any traffic rule
violations by the accused.
19. In such circumstances, the trial Court, in my considered
opinion, rightly found the respondent/accused not guilty of
the offence for which he was charged.
Page No. 8 of 9
15 September 2023.
Appeal-75-2004.doc
Chitra Sonawane.
20. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
[R.N.Laddha, J.]
Page No. 9 of 9
15 September 2023.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prosecution successfully identified the offending vehicle and the accused as the driver causing the rash and negligent driving incident.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Gopal Ramesh Sonawane
R.N.Laddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court