Dismissed¶7

Shamrao S/O Bhivaji Arma v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Jan 2025REVN/123/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rash and negligent driving; tractor dash; death of two minor children (Swapnil, 7; Nadini, 8) sitting on bonnet; idol immersion procession of goddess Sharda; S. 279 IPC; S. 304-A IPC; S. 184 Motor Vehicle Act; credibility of eyewitnesses PW-2 Maroti Sontakke and PW-6 Namdeo; revisional jurisdiction; perversity of findings; inadmissible evidence; Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2007) 14 SCC 269; negligence is the genus, rashness the species; conviction upheld; REVN 123 of 2024; Shamrao Arma v. State of Maharashtra; High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench; neutral citation 2025:BHC-NAG:9787; Rajnish R. Vyas, J.; judgment dated 22/09/2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the convictions and sentences imposed by the Courts below stand. ¶7

Shamrao S/O Bhivaji Arma vs the State of Maharashtra — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the convictions and sentences imposed by the Courts below stand.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the convictions under Ss. 279 and 304-A IPC and S. 184 M.V. Act recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court call for interference in revision — i.e., whether the findings are perverse or rest on inadmissible evidence.

¶7

Court's answer

Cross-examination of PW-2 Maroti Sontakke and PW-6 Namdeo brought out nothing to shake their testimony; they are reliable eyewitnesses to the incident.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Revisional scrutiny of a conviction is confined to perversity of findings or consideration of inadmissible evidence; both courts below rightly appreciated the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 and no perversity was found in their findings.

¶7

Key takeaways

The Court accepted as correct the APP's submission, drawn from Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, that negligence is the genus of which rashness is the species, bearing on the characterisation of the accused's driving as rash for failing to prevent the children from sitting on the bonnet.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Rajnish R. Vyas, J. — Criminal Revision Application dismissed. The applicant, a tractor driver, stood convicted by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court under S. 279 IPC (RI 2 months + fine), S. 304-A IPC (RI 6 months + fine) and S. 184 Motor Vehicle Act (RI 2 months + fine), with default sentences, for an incident on the eve of immersion of idol goddess Sharda in which two children, Swapnil (7) and Nadini (8), sitting on the tractor bonnet died after the tractor driven at high speed gave a dash to another tractor. The testimony of eyewitnesses PW-2 Maroti Sontakke and PW-6 Namdeo was not shaken in cross-examination and was held reliable. Revisional scrutiny being confined to perversity of findings or consideration of inadmissible evidence, none was found in the concurrent findings below. The Court endorsed the APP's reliance on Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2007) 14 SCC 269 (paras 5-6): negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. Convictions and sentences upheld; revision dismissed.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:9787

¶2

REVN 123-2024 (J).odt 1/5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 123 OF 2024

¶5

Shamrao S/o. Bhivaji Arma, Age: 27 years, Occu – Driver, R/o. Jivangatta, Tah. Etapalli, Dist. Gadchiroli

¶6

…. APPLICANT

¶7

….VERSUS….

¶8

State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station: Chamorshi, Tah. Chamorshi, Dist. Gadchiroli

¶9

.… NON-APPLICANT

¶10

Shri A.C.Jaltare, Advocate for applicant. Shri N.S.Rao, APP for non-applicant/State.

¶11

CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

¶12

DATE: 22/09/2025

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

Heard Mr. Jaltare, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rao, learned APP for the non-applicant/State.

¶15

By way of instant revision application, the applicant is taking exception to the judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court convicting him for

¶16

REVN 123-2024 (J).odt 2/5

¶17

commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC) and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months so also to pay fine. Default sentence is also imposed. The applicant is also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months so also to pay fine, and default sentence is also imposed. The applicant is further convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act (in short, “M.V.Act”) and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and to pay fine, and default sentence is also imposed.

¶18

Unfortunate incident had happened on the eve of immersion of idol goddess Sharda. Two children who are deceased were sitting on the bonnet of tractor. The applicant accused who is residing in the same village was driving the tractor. According to the case of the prosecution, applicant drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner which resulted into causing injuries and consequent death of the two

¶19

REVN 123-2024 (J).odt 3/5

¶20

children by named Swapnil and Nadini who were 7 years and 8 years of age respectively at the time of incident.

¶21

In order to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A of IPC and 184 of M.V.Act, the prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses. The witnesses who can be called as a star witnesses of the prosecution are PW-2 Maroti and PW-6 Namdeo. P.W. 2 Maroti Sontakke in his testimony has categorically stated that on the date of incident, the tractor was proceeding towards the lake for immersion of idol goddess Sharda, in which deceased were sitting. The accused by driving said tractor in a high speed gave dash to other tractor which consequently resulted into death. PW-6 Namdeo who was sitting beside the driver, has also narrated the incident in a similar manner.

¶22

In order to support the case of the prosecution, the learned APP for the State has relied upon the judgment passed in Prabhakaran V/s. State of Kerala reported in (2007) 14 SCC 269 , more particularly para 5 and 6 which are reproduced below:-

¶23

REVN 123-2024 (J).odt 4/5

¶24

“5. Section 304-A speaks of causing death by negligence. This section applies to rash and negligent acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act.

¶25

6. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. …….”

¶26

The learned APP is right in submitting that the

¶27

negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. Taking this argument to the logical end, learned APP says that it was the duty of the driver to advise the children not to sit on the bonnet and by not doing so, he has driven vehicle in rash manner.

¶28

I have gone through the cross-examination of both these witnesses i.e. PW-2 and 6. Nothing has been brought on

¶29

REVN 123-2024 (J).odt 5/5

¶30

record which would shake the testimony of these two witnesses by way of cross-examination and therefore, inference it can be said that these witnesses are reliable witnesses. The testimony of these two witnesses are considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. While deciding the question of conviction in revisional jurisdiction, Court will have to consider whether there is any perversity of finding or as to whether any inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration. Both the Courts have rightly considered testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 and have awarded the sentence. I do not find any perversity in the findings given by the Courts below and therefore, the revision application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Application (REVN) stands dismissed .

¶31

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)

¶32

B.T.Khapekar

¶33

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/09/2025 19:49:49

Shamrao S/O Bhivaji Arma v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamrao S/O Bhivaji Arma v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shaikh Mobin Shaikh Sultan vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Pankaj Sharad Aanap and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudam Kondiba Gophane vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rahul @ Kalidas Arun Gholap vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shripati Kisanrao Jogdand and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pranav Sahebrao Borhade and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another