1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2010 Vijay Hariba Kadam ) Age  35 years, Occ : Service, ) R/at : Apati, Taluka Jaoli, ) District Satara ) ...Appellant (Orig.Accused) vs. The State of Maharashtra through ) Gautam Maruti Gade, PHC, B.No.1926 ) Medha Police Station, Taluka Jaoli,) Dist Satara ) ...Respondent Mr.Rahul Kadam for the Appellant. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 9, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 Heard Counsel for the appellant and APP for the State. 2 By order dated 26th February, 2010, Brother B.R. Gavai J. was pleased to issue notice to the 2 respondent which was made returnable in three weeks. The parties were put on notice that the appeal would be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The appellant was directed to produce notes of evidence on record. Accordingly, the appellant has filed the compilation of evidence. 3 The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default, to undergo further S.I. for one month. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 280 of the IPC and is sentenced to undergo SI for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo SI for 10 days. Prosecution case in brief is as under :- 4 A family of four  husband, wife and their two minor daughters had gone on a tour between 25.5.2007 to 28.5.2007 to Mahabaleshwar. There is a 3 lake situated near Mahabaleshwar at the place called Tapola. On the bank of the said lake, there is a boat club known as Shivsagar Boat club. On 28th May, 2007 at about 4 p.m., they had gone for boating in the said lake. They paid hire charges Rs.380/- and hired boat no.38. The accused  appellant herein was in-charge of the said boat. At the relevant time, after they hired the boat, it started raining and since the boat no.38 did not have any roof, they inquired with the accused whether he could arrange for a boat having a roof. Accordingly, the accused asked the complainant Prejal Doshi and his family to sit in boat no.1 which had roof and thereafter with the help of PW-3 Ganesh Kadam removed the engine from boat no.38 and installed it in boat no.1 and thereafter, he took the said boat in the lake. At some point of time, due to heavy turbulence on account of strong wind and as a result, the boat capsized. However, three members of the family could survive, but their youngest daughter of 5 years of age died in the said incident and her body 4 was found after two hours. Initially, an accidental case was recorded by the police and thereafter, further inquiry was made. Inquest panchnama was prepared and dead body was referred for post mortem. Spot panchnama was prepared. A sketch was also drawn by the police Head Constable. Statements of witnesses were recorded. A notice under Section 209 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the accused. A complaint was lodged in which it was alleged that the accused failed to provide life jackets to the complainant or did not make proper arrangements for the safety while driving the boat in the said lake. Initially, offence under Section 304-A of the IPC was registered. Further investigation was carried out. Charge sheet was filed and offence under Sections 280, 304 of the IPC was added in the place of offence under Section 304-A. Charge, accordingly, was framed for the said offence. Accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 5 witnesses. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer SI for three months for the 5 offence under Section 304 Part II and also asked him to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and sentenced to undergo SI for one month for offence under Section 280 of the IPC and he was asked to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo further SI for 10 days. 5 Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He submitted that from the testimony of the complainant and the testimony of the other witnesses, it was apparent that the said incident which had taken place on that day was purely accident and the appellant could not be held to be responsible, in any way, for the said accident and death of the minor girl. He submitted that the PW-3 Ganesh Kadam in his evidence had clearly admitted that the accused/appellant had provided life jackets to the said family, however, they refused to put on the said life jackets. He further submitted that the learned trial court had proceeded on the said footing that the appellant had 6 taken the boat in the lake and the water was disturbed at that time. He submitted that the trial court, therefore, proceeded with erroneous footing that the water was disturbed wherein the fact that one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has deposed that the said water was not disturbed. He submitted that none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 304 Part II was made out by the prosecution case. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 280 of IPC also not attracted. 6 The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant was aware that it was raining at that time and even then, he proceeded to take the boat in the said lake. It was submitted that he had knowledge that on account of rain and disturbance of water, there was possibility of accident. She invited my attention to the evidence of PW-2  Prejal Doshi, Informant and the father of the deceased. She submitted that the said evidence along with evidence 7 of other witness clearly established that the appellant had committed the said offence. 7 I have heard both the learned Counsel at length. I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence which is brought on record. In my view, there is no evidence to show that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 304 Part II or under Section 280 of the IPC. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. PW 1 - Gautam Maruti Gade who is Head Constable who recorded the said statement. PW 2 is the father of the deceased and complainant Prejal Doshi. PW 3 is another witness who was in another boat at the relevant time. PW 4 is hotel owner who has his hotel at one of the banks of the lake. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer. PW 1 in his evidence has recorded that report at Exhibit 9. He initially registered a case of accidental death and informed the Medha Police Station and the preliminary report was prepared at Exhibit 10. He visited the spot of occurrence and directed inquest 8 panchnama which is at Exhibit 11. The dead body of the deceased girl was handed over for post mortem for examination. He also recorded the statement of witnesses. He prepared the spot panchnama in the presence of panch witness and also prepared a rough sketch. The said panchnama is produced on record at Exhibits 12 and 13. Notice was given to the accused. The said notice is at Exhibit 15. He thereafter lodged the complaint which is at Exhibit 17 and registered initially offence under Section 304-A of the IPC vide C.R.No.36/2007. Further investigation was carried out by PI Patil. This witness came at the scene after the dead body of the minor girl was found and was kept on the floor. He, therefore, was not eye witness to the said incident but has carried out the initial inquiry. PW2 is the eye witness to the said incident who is the father of the deceased. He has narrated the said incident. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that the accused had asked them to sit in boat no.38 which did not have a roof. He has further stated that he had 9 asked for life jacket, however, the accused told them that water was not deep and therefore, they should not worry. He has further stated that after the boat started sailing, it started raining and therefore, the accused took the boat near other bank at which place there was a boat which had a roof. The accused had asked them to sit in that boat which had a roof and he removed engine from the said boat and installed it in the boat having roof. According to him, one person helped the accused in installation of engine in the other boat who had come on the water scooter. The said person thereafter left on his water scooter in a speed. PW 2 has stated that the accused also followed him on the water scooter in high speed and though PW 2 asked him to sail the boat in slow speed, he did not pay any heed to his request. The boat capsized in the said lake. They were rescued by the scooter boat riders and the others who came there and put them in another boat and took them to the bank of the lake. However, his younger daughter Misty 10 could not be traced and her dead body was found after two hours. In the cross-examination, however, the contradiction made by him in his first statement was brought on record and it was marked as A from his report at Exhibit 9. The defence, therefore, was not in a position to bring on record that the witness had not stated before the police that he had asked for life jackets and the accused did not provide the life jackets to them. He had further admitted that some other statements, which he had raised in the court, were not found in the statements which were made by him before the police. PW-3 Ganesh Kadam was also working as boat driver in the said club and he has narrated the sequence of events. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the accused had asked the complainant and his family to put on the life jackets, however, they had refused to wear the said jackets. PW-4 Prakash Dhanawade, is the Hotel owner having a hotel on the bank of the said lake. He has merely stated that the accused was driving the said boat and the 11 complainant and his family members fell in the lake after the boat was toppled. PW-5 Investigating Officer Shivaji Patil who carried out investigation after initial investigation made by Police Head Constable. From the evidence which is adduced by the prosecution and more particularly, eye witness PW-2, it clearly discloses that lot of improvements have been made by him in his evidence before the court. The said improvement has been brought on record. He has also admitted that some of the statements which he had made before the court were not recorded by the police in the complaint. From this evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed an offence under Section 304 Part 2 or Section 280 of the IPC. There is no dispute about the sequence of events and even the accused has admitted in his statement under Section 313 as to what actually transpired on that day. The learned Sessions Court, however, appears to have proceeded on the footing that the water in the lake was disturbed and in spite of the disturbance in the water, the appellant 12 proceeded to take his boat in the said lake and therefore, acted negligently and had failed to provide life jackets to the family of PW-2 and therefore, acted negligently and had not taken any precaution while taking the boat in the disturbed water and thus, had the knowledge that it was likely to cause death. This can been seen from the points which have been framed for determination. The learned Sessions has framed the following points for determination :- POINTS FINDINGS 1. Whether the accused rashly or negligently navigated boat in disturbed water, without taking due precaution and endangered human lives? Yes 2 Whether the accused committed culpable homicide of Miss. Misty Prejal Doshi, aged 5 years, by navigating the boat in disturbed water, without taking precaution for her safety and with knowledge that it was likely to cause 13 death, but without intention to cause her death? Yes 3 What order? As per final order 8 It is pertinent to note that none of the witnesses stated that the water was disturbed. It is not the prosecution case that the boat was taken in the lake when there was disturbance in the water. PW 2, on the other hand, hired the boat after having paid hire charges of Rs.380/-. The appellant was in- charge of one of the boats. PW-2 has stated that initially when the boat was hired, it was not raining and only after they sat in the boat and travelled at a distance, thereafter, it started raining. PW-2 in his statement has stated as follows :- We reached Tapola by about 4.00 p.m. We hired Boar bearing No.38 by paying hire charges of Rs.380/- to Shivsagar Boat Club. The accused sitting before the court was incharge of the said Boat. He made us to sit in the said Boat. That Boat was not having roof. When we asked for life-jacket, the accused replied 14 that the water was not so deep and that we should not worry. After our boat started sailing, rain started. Therefore, the accused took our boat near the other bank, where boat having roof was there. 9 Thus, it is not the case of the complainant that when they sailed in the boat, it was raining. On the contrary, after the boat sailed at some distance, thereafter it started raining. Secondly, the complainant had paid for the hire charges to the boat club and he was allotted boat no.38. The appellant had no other option but to take the passenger who had booked and paid hire charges. Secondly, this witness, in fact, does not state that when the boat started sailing, the water was turbulent or that there was heavy rain or wind at that time. The Sessions Judge, therefore, has proceeded on the footing that there was turbulence in the water of the lake and in spite of that, the appellant had taken the family of PW-2 to his boat and therefore, acted negligently and had not taken 15 any safety precautions. It is difficult to understand as to how the learned Sessions Judge has drawn this inference. The said observation, therefore, is not borne out by the record. Secondly, it has been established that the appellant had offered life jackets to PW-2 and his family, however, they declined to take those life jackets. Though PW-2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had asked for the life jacket and that the accused had not supplied those jackets to them by telling them that the water is not very deep, in the cross-examination, it has come on record that he had not made that statement before the police and therefore, it has been established that the said statement made by PW-2 before the court was an improvement to the earlier statement made before the police. On the other hand, PW-3 Ganesh Kadam in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that life jackets were there in boat no.38 and the accused had asked PW-2 and his family to put on the life jackets, however, they refused to do so. PW-2 in his 16 cross has stated as follows :- It is true to say that four live-jackets were there in Boat No. 38. At that time, the accused had asked tourists to put-on the said live-jackets, but tourists had refused to use the same. 10 From the evidence of PW-3, therefore, it is evident that the appellant had taken due care and precaution and it cannot be said that he acted negligently. PW-4 was also an independent witness who was examined by the prosecution. He has stated that he was present in his hotel and he had seen that in the boat had toppled in front of his hotel. He does not, however, give any particulars of what transpired before the incident had taken place. He also not stated that the water was turbulent. The only eye witness to the entire incident, therefore, is PW-2 and he has not established that the appellant had acted either in negligent manner or was driving the boat in rash and negligent manner or was responsible for the death of his daughter. In 17 my view, therefore, the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the said offence punishable under Section 304 Part II or 280 of the IPC. 11 The judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, therefore, is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges which are levelled against him. 12 The appeal, accordingly, is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)