1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.496 OF 2009 Shri Vitthal Gopal Gaikwad ..... Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra ..... Respondent Mr.R.N. Gite, Advocate for applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for respondent-State. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 25th August, 2009. PC : 1. This Revision Application challenges correctness and legality of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and Appellate Court under Section 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court had convicted the applicant under Section 337 Indian Penal Code also which conviction has been set aside by the Appellate Court. 2. On 19th January 2002 at about 23.30 hours, accident took place at Vani village, Dindori road between the jeep bearing registration No.MH-15/AG-3714 coming from Nashik and the two wheeler i.e. MH-80 bearing registration No.MH-02-A-5556 on account of jeep being driven in rash and negligent manner, The jeep hit two wheeler from behind and turned turtle throwing some 2 occupants out of the jeep. A rider of two wheeler and one person travelling in the jeep died in the accident. The applicant was driving the offending vehicle. Both the Courts below on evaluation of the evidence have held that at the relevant time the applicant was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and he is responsible for causing the accident and death of two persons in the accident. 3. Mr.Gite, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the findings of both the courts below that at the relevant time, the offending vehicle was being driven by the applicant is erroneous and not supported by the evidence on record. Perusal of the record shows that three witnesses i.e. PW 3, PW-4 and PW-5 stated in their evidence that the jeep was being driven by the applicant. PW-4 admitted in cross-examination that the name of the applicant as Vitthal was given by him because Police told him the name of driver. PW-5 was the employer of the persons travelling in the jeep. He had taken the injured persons to the Hospital. The prosecution has also examined two other occupants of the jeep i.e. PW-7 and PW-8 who are from the same village as of the applicant. These two witnesses had hired the jeep for the purpose of carrying agricultural produce. However, they have not identified the applicant or given name of the drive of the jeep at the relevant time. 3 4. I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the courts below. In my considered opinion, there is no perversity in the decisions. Merely because the name mentioned by PW-3 is on the information of the Police the identification of the applicant cannot be disbelieved. The view taken by both the courts below is a possible view in the matter and does not warrant any interference. Hence, the Revision Application is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the Revision Application, the Criminal Revision Application No.444 of 2009 does not survive, the same is accordingly dismissed. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.]