Mr.Aniket v. Wadvale h
Legal Reasoning
{1} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2006The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station,Loha, Dist.Nanded.….Appellant VersusShivaji Venkatrao GhorbandAge: 38 years, Occu.: Service,R/o. : Pangra, Tq.Loha, Dist.Nanded.…..Respondent (Ori. Accused) …..APP for Appellant : Mr.S.M.Ganachari Advocate for Respondent : Mr.Aniket V. Wadvale h/f. Mr.A.M.Gaikwad ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON : 13 AUGUST, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1.Appellant State hereby takes exception to judgment and orderdated 07-03-2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,Loha, in SCC No.626 of 1999, thereby acquitting present respondentfrom offence under Sections 279 and 238 of the Indian Penal Code.CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF 2.In short, before trial Court, it is the case that, prosecution was
Legal Reasoning
{2} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006launched against the present respondent (original accused) on thepremise, that, on 25-12-1997 at around 12:00 Noon, respondentaccused drove Motorcycle over Latur - Nanded Road in a rash andnegligent manner i.e. by endangering human life and personal safetyof others and caused grievous hurt to victim PW3 Venkat NarhariWattamwar.PW6 Shridhar Abadji Mekewar, is the then PSO, whoregistered complaint and carried out initial investigation. Then, theinvestigation was handed over to PHC Potdar. On gathering sufficient evidence, accused was chargesheetedfor above offence. Particulars of charge were explained to theaccused by the learned trial Judge and on denial of charge, he wastried vide SCC No.626 of 1999. In support of its case, prosecutionhas adduced evidence of in all seven witnesses. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learnedtrial Judge held that prosecution failed to bring home the chargesand thereby acquitted present respondent. Hence, instant appeal.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of appellant State :3.Learned APP would submit that there was clear, cogent and {3} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006convincing evidence about accused riding Motorcycle on a publicroad in excessively high speed, in rash and negligent manner. He hadgiven dash to PW3 Venkat, who suffered grievous injury andultimately was required to lose his lower limb as it was required to beamputated. According to learned APP, there was not only evidence ofeye witness, but also evidence of medical expert. Thus, requirementsand essential ingredients for attracting both the charges underSections 279 and 338 of the IPC were very much available. Spotpanchanama, which was proved, demonstrated that, there was utternegligence and rashness on the part of accused and therefore, heought to have been held guilty. The same not having happened, andrather accused being acquitted, learned APP urges for interference bysetting aside impugned judgment and order of acquittal by allowingthe appeal. On behalf of Respondent : 4.Per contra, learned counsel for respondent supported thefindings of the learned trial Court and ultimately submitted thatprosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges beyondreasonable doubt. He relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka,(2007) 4 SCC 415. {4} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT5.In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of inall seven witnesses. The sum and substance of their evidence is asunder:PW1 Vasant Motiram Honrao is an independent witness. Hedeposed as under :“1) I know to the accused. On 25/12/97 I was present in my shop at BalirajMarket Shivaji Chowk, Loha. On that day accused was coming on motor-cycle and one Wattamwar also proceeding on motor-cycle. At that timeaccused gave dash to the motorcycle of Wattanwar and thereafter he left thespot. Thereafter some persons gathered on spot and they referred to theWattamwar towards Hospital. The accused present before court is same.The accused was driving his motorcycle in high speed.”PW2 Ram Sakhahari Wattamwar is nephew of injured. Hedeposed as under :“1- Incident took place on 25/12/1997 near Shivaji Chowk at Lohaat about 12 noon. I was at my shop. The grocery shopkeeper Vasant MotiranHonrao informed me by telephonic massage that my uncle met in theaccident near Shivaji Chowk, of the Yezdi motorcycle. Name of my uncleVenkat Narhari Wattamwar. On receipt of information I went to the spot. Myuncle Venkati was lying on the ground. His right leg was fractured. After 15days, we told doctor to get examine the injured by other because injuredhad no relief. There-upon doctor told to us that we have too much moneyand asked to take away the injured. We got examined injured to DoctorKurshale who advised us to take away injured by Doctor Kurshale who {5} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006advise us to take away Injured to Pune at Sancheti Hospital, as injured issuffering from Gangring. Dr. Khursale removed the Plaster & observed theinjury which was rot. My uncle was in the hospital of Bhandari for onemonth. Then he was taken to Sancheti Hospital Pune. Where he wasadmitted and treated. Doctor told that injured suffering from Gangring andhis leg should be cut. On the third day the leg was cut under the Knee. Imyself lodged complaint in the police station Loha. Shivaji Gorbhand wasdriving the Yezdi motorcycle at the time of incident. He drove hismotorcycle in zig zag manner. I do not know Shivaji Ghorband. I lodgedcomplaint in the Police Station after one month.” PW3 Venkat Narhari Wattamwar is injured. He deposed asunder : “1. I know the accused. Incident took place in the year 1997 at about 12.00noon in Shivali Chowk in front of Hotal Jagadamba on Lature-Nanded road.At that time I was standing in front of shop of Vasant Honrao, I wasstanding on my Hero Honda motorcycle. Nanded Latur road is South-Northroad. I was on the western side of the road. I was alone. One Yezdimotorcycle came from Loha side. It came from front side and dashed me. Ifell down. I sustained injuries to my right leg and hand. The accused beforethe court was the driver of Yezdi motorcycle, He was in high speed. Theaccident took place due to fault of accused, Vasant Honrao, Ramkishan,Dyanoba Shivnikar and ten to twelve other persons gathered there. I wasput in the jeep and directly taken to Nanded hospital. I was taken to thehospital of Dr. Bhandari. Where I was admitted, I was in the hospital for 15to 20 days there. I have no knowledge about further treatment. Then I wastaken to Poona hospital for treatment as doctor told that injury is notrecovered and I may be taken to Pune. Then I was taken to Sanchetihospital Pune.”PW4 Dyanoba Madhavrao Shingare is spot pancha. Spotpanchanama is at exh.24. {6} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006PW5 Kishan Maroti Jakapure is an independent witness. Hedeposed as under: “1. I know the accused, and the complainant & injured Venkat Vatamartoo. Accident took place on 25/12/97 at about 12.00 hours in front ofRanjeet Hotel on Nanded-Loha road. At the time of accident I was takingtea on Jagadamba Dhaba. The injured Venkat was talking to one Vasantraoin front of his shop on road. They were stopped on eastern side of road. Iwas present near about 100 ft. from the spot of accident. The injured Venkatwas sitted on motor-cycle. At that time one motor-cycle came from Lohaside and gave dash to injured Venkatrao. Therefore, injury sustained to theright leg of Venkatrao and he sustained fracture. The accused was drivingthe said motor-cycle. He is absent today. I can identify if shown to me. Theaccused was driving the motor cycle in high speed. The accident occurreddue to negligence of Shivaji. Therefore Venkatrao was referred at Nanded ina private hospital. Doctor examined to the injured.”PW6 Shridhar Abadji Makewar is Police Head Constable, whoregistered crime no.14 of 1998. PW7 Dr.Prakash Mohanlal Bhandari is Medical Officer, whoexamined injured. He deposed as under :“1) I know injured Venkat Wattamwar. I was practising in my hospital atNanded on 25/12/97. I have examined injured on the same date at about2:30 pm. On examination I found fracture Tibia Fibula upper 1/3rdinvolving joint on Right leg. I have done the plaster on injured. He wasadmitted in my hospital since 25/12/97 to 17/1/98. After removing plasterthere was swelling, he was kept on posterior slab and thereafter skeleton {7} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006traction. Thereafter he was having neurovascular problem. Therefore, hewas shifted at Puna. He was referred for the purpose of plastic surgery andfurther treatment. He was referred to Sancheti Hospital Puna. Today I haveissued injury certificate. Now shown to me is same, bears my signature, itscontents are true and correct. It is marked at exh. 32. The injury shown ininjury certificate is possible if a person gave dash by another motor-cycle.”6.In view of charge, it is incumbent upon prosecution to first andforemost establish that accused was riding on a public way and hewas driving vehicle under his control in rash and negligent mannerand thereby he had endangered human life or was likely to causehurt or injury. Thus, the core of the offence is rash and negligentmanner of riding. For attracting charge under Section 279 of the IPC, followingingredients should be demonstrated :Firstly, rash driving or riding on a public waySecondly, such driving or riding must be negligent to the point ofendangering human life or causing harm or injury. Thus, to convict a person to above charge, it must be shownthat above two ingredients are not only demonstrated but are to beestablished. {8} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006Essential ingredients of Section 338 of the IPC are as under :.Accused did some act;. He did it rashly or negligently;.The act was such as to endanger human life or personal safety of others;.Grievous hurt was caused in consequence of such act.ANALYSIS7.Here evidence of PW1 Vasant, PW2 Ram, PW3 Venkat and PW5Ramkishan is of importance. Except PW3 (who is a victim), all othersclaim to be eye witnesses.On re-appreciation of evidence of PW1 Vasant, it is emergingthat, on 25-12-1997, accused came on Motorcycle at Baliraj MarketShivaji Chowk, while Wattamwar was also proceeding on Motorcycleand accused gave dash to Wattamwar and left the spot andWattamwar was taken to hospital. According to him, accused wasdriving Motorcycle in high speed. PW2 Ram claims that on relevant day and time, he was in hisshop and he claimed that grocery shop owner Vasant MotiramHonrao informed him on telephone that his uncle met with anaccident and so accordingly he went to spot and that his uncle hadsuffered fracture and thereafter, required to be taken initially to localDoctor and thereafter, to Sancheti Hospital. His evidence shows that {9} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 2006he has hearsay information. PW3 Venkat is the victim and according to him, while he wasstanding in front of shop of Vasant i.e. PW1, one Yezdi Motorcyclecame from Loha side i.e. front side and dashed him and so he felldown and suffered injuries to right leg and hand. According to him,accident took place due to fault of accused. 8.It is to be noted that, according to PW1 Vasant, while PW3Venkat was proceeding on Motorcycle, he suffered dash at the handsof accused, but contrary to it, PW3 Venkat i.e. victim has stated thathe was standing and thus stationary and therefore, evidence of PW1Vasant and PW3 Venkat are inconsistent. 9.PW5 Ramkishan is alleged eye witness and according to him,while he was taking tea at Jagadamba Dhaba, injured Venkat wastalking to Vasantrao. At that time, this witness was 100 feet awayfrom the spot. That, while injured was sitted on Motorcycle, oneMotorcycle came from Loha side and gave dash to injured causinginjury to leg of Venkatrao. {10} CRI APPEAL 430 OF 200610.Therefore, on complete re-appreciation of above evidence,what is conspicuous is that none including PW3 Venkat, deposedabout vehicle being driven by accused in rash and negligent manner,which is the very essence for attracting the charge. Therefore, veryrequired ingredients of Sections 279 and Section 338 of the IPC arenot available in the prosecution evidence. No doubt, the victim hassuffered fracture injury, but as regards to amputation of his leg isconcerned, which is emphasized by learned APP, it is not attributableto the accident and is rather attributable to further treating Doctor.Injured had suffered only fracture injury, but after a month or so, asthe said fracture injury did not heal, further amputation was requiredto be undertaken, but it is not attributable to only alleged dash.11.For above reasons, when the very essence of requirements ofcharge being missing, no fault can be found in the order of acquittalpassed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the following order : ORDERCriminal Appeal stands dismissed. ( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE ) JUDGE SPT