Vishwas Ramchandra Ghorpade v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 3, 181, 184
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The brief facts of the case are as under : On 17.4.2007 the applicant was proceeding on his 2 CR.A. No. 320 of 2010 motorcycle from West to East on public road. When he was in front of shop by name Diamond Agency, his…
Judgment
Mr. V.B. Nighot i/by Mr. A.B. Kadam, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for State. CORAM:SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2010. P.C.
This revision application arises out of the judgment and order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2009 confirming the order of conviction passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara in Summary Criminal Case No. 1280 of 2007.
The brief facts of the case are as under : On 17.4.2007 the applicant was proceeding on his 2 CR.A. No. 320 of 2010 motorcycle from West to East on public road. When he was in front of shop by name Diamond Agency, his motorcycle hit a pedestrian by name Tatya Bhiva Pawar, a 60 years old person who was crossing the road. As a consequence of the impact, the victim fell down, sustained head injury and died before admission to the hospital. During the Course of investigation, it was discovered that the applicant did not even hold a valid licence for driving the motorcycle. The Chief Judicial Magistrate held the applicant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IP.C. and under section 184 & 3 read with Sec. 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and sentenced him to different punishments as stated in the order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence.
Mr. Nighot, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of P.W. No. 2 Mr. Mukund Dambe who was examined as an eye witness. He submits that if the evidence of this witness is perused, it can be seen that he can not be said to be an eye 3 CR.A. No. 320 of 2010 witness as he could have no occasion to see the accident. The learned counsel draws my attention to the cross examination of P.W. 2 in which witness has stated that the old man has passed his bicycle before coming across the motor cycle of the applicant. The learned counsel submits that if the victim had already crossed the bicycle of P.W. 2, he must have moved ahead. In that case, the place of accident would be behind him and hence, there was no possibility of he seeing the accident. Perusal of the evidence of P.W. 2 shows that the old man had crossed his bicycle and thereafter gone in crosswise direction.
Operative part
This would mean that after crossing the bicycle of P.W. 2, the victim had not proceeded in the same straight line so as to be out of the vision of P.W. 2. Having gone crosswise, he was still in front of P.W. 2 and as such the incident could be seen by the witness. Besides, perusal of cross examination of P.W. 2 shows that it is not even suggested to this witness that he had either not seen the accident or it was not possible for him to see the accident as because he had crossed the place of accident and gone ahead. As regards the negligence on the part of the 4 CR.A. No. 320 of 2010 applicant, the very fact that he was riding the vehicle without valid licence is sufficient. Besides the prosecution case shows that the victim had almost crossed the entire road and was towards the end of the road when the accident took place. In the circumstances, I find no error whatsoever in the judgments and orders of the courts below which exhaustively dealt with all the arguments raised on behalf of the applicant. Hence, Revision application is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of revision, Civil Application also dismissed as infructuous. At the request of the learned counsel. the order of interim bail is extended by the period of four weeks from today.
(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 3, 181, 184.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Nov 2010. The bench was R P SONDURBALDOTA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.