1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.688 OF 2009 Mr.Manohar Raghunath Kamble ...Applicant (Orig.Accused) Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.K.Kocharekar, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. R.V. Newton, A.P.P for the State CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 7TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1.The applicant has challenged two concurrent findings of facts under the judgments of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai dated 2nd April 2009 and the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai dated 10th November 2009. The applicant has been convicted under Section 279 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. 2 The applicant has also been convicted under Section 337 of the I.P.C and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months and pay fine of Rs.500/-. The fine amount is paid. The Appeal has been dismissed. 2.The case is upon rash and negligent driving. This rashness and negligence is from the first step of driving itself. The applicant's lorry was parked. The injured complainant was sleeping somewhere behind that lorry. The applicant sought to reverse. The complainant has suffered 4 injuries to his wrist, temporal region, forehead and forearm. That is shown in the injury report of the Medical Officer of St.George Hospital, Bombay dated 20th November 2007. 3.The statements of the complainant and the other eye witness show that the complainant was sleeping on the footpath. Mr.Kocharekar argued that the complainant was sleeping on the road as per the prosecution case. That part is not reflected in the complaint at all. 4.The fact remains that whilst reversing the vehicle the complainant has sustained injuries. The act relates to the breach of human rights. It is immaterial to see whether the complainant was sleeping on the foot-path or on the road. 3 5.The evidence shows that P.W.2 removed the complainant to the hospital; the accused did not. However, the injuries are minor in nature. 6.The applicant shall have to surrender and be taken in custody as per the orders of the subordinate Courts. 7.The applicant applies for suspension of that sentence and to be granted liberty. For that purpose the applicant/accused shall have to compensate the complainant/victim. On the applicant/accused depositing in this Court Rs.25,000/- within 2 weeks the order of sentence shall stand suspended, and he shall be released without any further conditions. If the amount is not deposited within 2 weeks the applicant shall be taken in custody. If the amount is deposited the complainant/victim shall be entitled to withdraw the amount. 8.The applicant s Advocate shall serve a copy of this order upon respondent No.2. 9.Criminal Application disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)