1 (REVN 97/2001) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.97 OF 2001 Subhash Sakharam Choudhary ....Petitioner. V/s The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent. Mr. V.G. Indrale for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. Petitioner has been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that both the courts below have patently 2 (REVN 97/2001) erred in convicting the accused for the said offence. It is firstly submitted that the Trial Court has relied on the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that no adverse inference could have been drawn on the statement of the accused recorded under section 313. Secondly, he submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner was acting in a rash and negligent manner while driving the said vehicle. He also invited my attention to the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution and submitted that both the Courts below ought to have acquitted the accused on the ground that he was not driving in a rash and negligent manner but there was an error of judgment on the part of the Petitioner. 4. It is no doubt true that the Trial Court ought not to have relied on the statement of the accused recorded under section 313. The Apex Court and this Court in catena of cases have held that the conviction of the accused cannot be based on his statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the fact remains that the prosecution has examined the injured witnesses who have stated that the accused had, while taking turn, dashed the verandah on which the injured witnesses were sitting. That being the position, even if the statement of the accused under section 313 is discarded, there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. In any case, while exercising revisional jurisdiction 3 (REVN 97/2001) of this Court, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record and come to the different conclusion on the point of sentence. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in jail for about 19 days and that he has been happily married and having two children and that he has not committed similar offence thereafter. Taking into consideration the said submission, in my view, it will be appropriate if the sentence is reduced from three months to the period which the Petitioner has already undergone. Taking into consideration the subsequent events and that the fact that the incident took place in 1994, the sentence will have to be reduced from three months to the period which the Petitioner has already undergone. 6. Accordingly, conviction of the Petitioner/accused is confirmed. However, sentence is reduced from three months to the period which the Petitioner has already undergone. Petitioner has already paid the amount of fine. The bail bonds of the Petitioner/accused stands cancelled. 7. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (REVN 97/2001) (V.M. KANADE, J.)