1 Cri.Appln.No.245/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.245 OF 2011 Mahadeo s/o Narayan Gitte ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.D. Wange, Advocate for applicant Shri N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 8th November, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused the application and annexures thereto. 2. This is a revision against the order of dismissing Criminal Appeal No.3/2003 and confirming the order of conviction and sentence for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The applicant/ accused has been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code 2 Cri.Appln.No.245/2011 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default to suffer S.I. for one month. He has also been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code with no rigour of undergoing separate sentence. 4. It was the prosecution case that the appellant/ accused was driving the jeep bearing Registration No.MH-20-B-7247 on Sirsala Parali Road in high speed on 28.8.1997 and on application of sudden brakes, the jeep dashed on the side wall of the bridge and turtled, thereby causing death of one person on the spot and injuries – both simple and grievous to the passengers in the jeep. Two more persons also died in the accident. 5. The appellant Court made following observations at para 20:- “20. I have meticulously gone through the evidence placed before the learned trial Court and reasoning given by him. P.W.2 Munja proved the spot panchanam Exh.17. Exh. 17 shows that accident took place on bridge of river at Pangri village. The offending jeep of appellant got damaged due to dash given to barricade of bridge. The spot panchanama clearly shows that accident took place due to sudden application of breaks by which jeep of appellant was slipped and passengers were thrown in to the river and some of them got grievous injuries, due to accident. The 3 Cri.Appln.No.245/2011 evidence of P.W.4 Abasaheb Mane clearly shows that appellant was driving his jeep in high speed even in rainy season.” 6. Learned counsel is unable to point out any error of law or error in exercise of jurisdiction committed by the courts below. Deserves no interference. Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/crra245.11