Dismissed

Gajanan Sitaram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Dec 2023REVN/83/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal revision application challenging a conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death. The court held that investigation defects did not vitiate the trial and evidence sufficiently established the drivers negligence.

What did the court decide?

The revision application filed by the accused was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the lower courts.

Gajanan Sitaram Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶2

Chitra Sonawane.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Criminal Revision Application No.83 of 2020

¶5

1. Mr Gajanan Sitaram Chaudhari, Aged – 43 Years, Occ: S.T.Driver Adult, Indian Inhabitant Presently residing At Kalamb,

¶6

 Taluka – Ambegaon, District – Pune....Petitioner

¶7

 (Original Accused)

¶8

V/S

¶9

1. State of Maharashtra Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRA SANJAY Through Chakan Police Station SONAWANE SANJAY Date: Taluka – Khed, District – Pune. SONAWANE 2023.12.11 13:47:08 +0530

¶10

Mr Rahul D. Motkari, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms MR Tidke, APP for State.

¶11

 Coram : R. N. Laddha, J.

¶12

 Reserved on : 11 October 2023.
 Pronounced on : 11 December 2023.

¶13

Judgment :

¶14

The accused/revision petitioner(hereinafter referred to
as ‘the accused’), has filed this revision application against
the judgment and order dated 5.11.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, Rajgurunagar,
Pune, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2014 and
confirming the judgment and order dated 7.2.2014 passed by

¶15

 Page No. 1 of 8

¶16

 11 December 2023

¶17

Chitra Sonawane.

¶18

revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶19

the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khed-Rajgurunagar, in
SCC No.275 of 2012. By this judgment and order, the
accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶20

2.On 4.5.2012, the informant Hanumant Nikam along
with his wife had been to village Bhosari to attend the
marriage ceremony of his relative by a motorcycle bearing
registration No.MH-14-BH-8723. After attending the
marriage ceremony and returning to village Chinchoshi by
their motorcycle, the informant was riding the motorcycle,
and his wife Rani was pillion rider.Whilewaiting at a red
light signal at Chakan-Talegaon Square, an ST bus travelling
at a high speed came from behind and dashed their
motorcycle. The impact caused the Hanumant’s (PW1) wife,
Rani, to fall off the motorcycle and the left wheel of the bus
hit her head. Immediately, she was then taken to a
government hospital in Chakan, where she was declared
dead.

¶21

3.On being informed about the alleged accident, police
proceeded to the spot of accident. Panchnama of the spot of
accident came to be drawn. Hanumant Nikam (PW1), the
first informant, lodged a complaint against the accused,

¶22

 Page No. 2 of 8
____________________________________________
 11 December 2023

¶23

Chitra Sonawane. revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶24

leading to the registration of a crime vide C.R.No.123 of
2012 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 338 and
304-A of the IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

¶25

4.The police made requisite investigation, interrogated
witnesses and recorded their statements. During the
investigation, it transpired that the accident had occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the ST bus bearing
registration No.MH-12-CH -7606 by the accused. The
police conducted further investigation during the course of
which a post-mortem report of the deceased was obtained.
After finding the complicity of the accused, a charge-sheet
came to be lodged. As the accused abjured the guilt, the trial
commenced.

¶26

5.During the course of the trial, the learned Magistrate
recorded the evidence of Hanumant Nikam (PW1), the first
informant; Shivaji Sawant (PW2), a public witness to the spot
panchnama; Sanjay Koli (PW 3), an investigating officer; and
Dr Vijay Sonawane (PW4), Medical Officer attached to
Chakan Hospital. As the prosecution closed its evidence, the
accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, as to the incriminating
circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution

¶27

 Page No. 3 of 8
____________________________________________
 11 December 2023

¶28

Chitra Sonawane. revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶29

witnesses, but he denied them as false. The accused did not
lead any evidence in his defence.

¶30

6.After appraisal of the evidence and the documents
tendered for its perusal, the learned Magistrate was
persuaded to return the finding of the guilt against the
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338
and 304-A IPC. This verdict was upheld by the learned
Additional Sessions Court, Khed-Rajgurunagar. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the
accused has preferred this revision application.

¶31

7.Mr Rahul Motkari, the learned Counsel for the accused,
submitted that the trial Court misread the prosecution
evidence, failed to evaluate the evidence in a proper
perspective, and was influenced by a number of assumptions
that cannot be sustained on the material on record. As a
result, there has been a grave miscarriage of justice. The
involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and the identity
of the accused as the person who was at the wheel of the
offending vehicle has not been established. There is no
evidence regarding rash and negligent driving, and the non-
examination of the other alleged eye-witnesses dents
prosecution. Additionally, no panchnama of the vehicle

¶32

 Page No. 4 of 8
____________________________________________
 11 December 2023

¶33

revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶34

Chitra Sonawane.

¶35

involved in the accident was drawn, and there was a delay in
lodging the FIR.

¶36

8.Ms MR Tidke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, has argued that
the evidence on record unequivocally points to the accused’s
rash and negligent driving as the sole and proximate cause of
the death of the deceased. The situation at the spot, as borne
out by the evidence, establishes the guilt of the accused
beyond a shadow of doubt. According to the learned APP,
the non-examination of other eye-witnesses is of little
consequence as the cross-examination of the first informant
(PW 1) revealed that due to the dash of the offending bus,
his wife fell in front of the bus and the motorcycle was also
damaged.

¶37

9.After examining the record of the case, it is revealed
that Hanumant Nikam (PW 1) was the husband of the
deceased Rani. They were returning to their village on a
motorcycle after attending a marriage at Bhosari. Hanumant
(PW 1) was driving the motorcycle while his wife Rani was
riding the pillion. They stopped at Chakan Talegaon Square
due to a red light signal. The offending bus bearing
registration No. MH-12-CH-7606 came from behind and

¶38

 Page No. 5 of 8

¶39

 11 December 2023

¶40

revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶41

Chitra Sonawane.

¶42

knocked down to their motorcycle, causing Rani/the
deceased to fall off the motorcycle and sustain a head injury
from the wheel of the bus.

¶43

10.In the cross-examination of Hanumant Nikam (PW1),
surprisingly, it was brought on record by the defence that all
road lights were on. There was heavy traffic at Chakan
Talegaon Square, and several vehicles were stopped there due
to a red light signal. Traffic police were also present at the
scene. The deceased fell on the road in front of the bus due
to the impact of the bus, and his motorcycle was also
damaged.

¶44

11.The learned Counsel for the accused invited the
attention of this Court to the evidence of Shivaji Sawant
(PW2), a public witness at the scene of the incident, and
submitted that while preparing the spot panchnama, the
offending vehicle and the motorcycle of the first informant
were not found at the spot. Although he acknowledged that
both vehicles were not present at the actual spot of incident,
he stated that the incident occurred on the highway. Keeping
both vehicles at the spot of the incident until the
panchanama was drawn would have caused unnecessary
obstruction to the general public and traffic. Regarding the

¶45

 Page No. 6 of 8

¶46

 11 December 2023

¶47

Chitra Sonawane. revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶48

delay in lodging FIR, it is unlikely that the husband/first
informant would be able to file the report immediately after
the incident.

¶49

12.Mr Rahul Motkari, the learned Counsel for the accused,
argued that the investigation in the present case was highly
defective since no sketches or photographs of the incident
spot were taken during the course of investigation. However,
it is well established legal principle that a defective
investigation cannot be the sole ground for acquittal. The
Court has a obligation to examine the prosecution evidence
carefully to determine its reality and whether any lapses
affected the truth finding objectives. The probity of
investigation alone cannot determine the outcome of the
trial.

¶50

13.The incident occurred on a road with heavy traffic
where several vehicles, including the informant’s motorcycle
had come to a stop due to a red light signal. Despite the
circumstances, the accused drove his vehicle recklessly and
negligently, causing the death of the wife of the informant. It
is evident that a prudent person would not drive a bus in
such a manner as to collide with a motorcycle that had
stopped due to red light signal. This act is certainly negligent

¶51

 Page No. 7 of 8
____________________________________________
 11 December 2023

¶52

revn appl-83-2020.doc

¶53

Chitra Sonawane.

¶54

and reckless, and demonstrates a lack of due care and
attention.

¶55

14.Therefore, no infirmity can be found in conviction of
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279,
338 and 304-A IPC. As a result, the revision application
stands dismissed.

¶56

¶57

 Page No. 8 of 8

¶58

 11 December 2023

Gajanan Sitaram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanan Sitaram Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvesh Construction Private Limited through Director Satyan Appa Kesarkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Armstrong Infrastructure Private Limited through Sameer Magan Bhujbal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Devisha Infrastructure Private Limited through Sameer Magan Bhujbal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union of India through Cbi, Eob, Mumbai Vs Mohd Farooq Mohd Hanif Shaikh and Anr.

Shree Vastucreation Developers and Ors. vs Singh Decorators and Anr.

Ayush Chaturvedi vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.