1 REVN.6.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLN. NO. 6 OF 2O11 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2011 Mr. Mahadev Maruti Malwade. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent. Mr. Anand S. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP for the Respondent. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 18th APRIL 2011. PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd MAY 2011. P.C. :- Applicant – original convicted accused has preferred present Criminal Revision Application challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, dated 30th October 2010, passed in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2007. By the Judgment and Order in the said Appeal No.4 of 2007, conviction of the present Applicant was maintained. Earlier, on 1st February 2007, J.M.F.C., Sangola convicted the present Applicant for the offences punishable 2 REVN.6.11.sxw under Sections 279, 337 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/- on each count and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 2 months each. The Applicant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months, substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Applicant – Accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Penal Sections of Motor Vehicle Act. 2. As the position stands today, it is a factual position that there are concurrent findings of guilt for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of I.P.C. against the present Applicant and both J.M.F.C. and Sessions Court had appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and mainly the evidence of four eye-witnesses PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. Under this factual position, the arguments advanced on behalf of the Applicant are to be appreciated. 3. It is argued that the eye witnesses are the interested parties inasmuch as PW-3 injured was himself in the motor 3 REVN.6.11.sxw jeep and he is the owner of the jeep whereas PW-4 is the labour of complainant – PW-2. PW-5 another eye-witness was allegedly present at the house of PW-2 – complainant. PW-2 – complainant is also the eye witness. In short, it is the submission on behalf of the Applicant that all these eye- witnesses are interested and as such, their testimony was wrongly appreciated by the Trial Court and as such, the interference under the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court is warranted. 4. After going through the substantive evidence led before the Trial Court, it appears that total six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Out of them, PW-1 is the Officer from R.T.O. His evidence goes to show that there was no any mechanical defect in the vehicle, a truck driven by the Applicant – Accused. PW-2 is the complainant who had witnessed the accident while sitting outside his house and he saw that the offending truck being driven by the Applicant – accused was proceeding towards Pandharpur in a zigzag manner and gave dash to a jeep proceeding towards Sangola. Said PW-2 – complainant further deposed that the offending 4 REVN.6.11.sxw truck had gone on the wrong side of the road and dashed to the jeep in which PW-3, the owner of the jeep was also travelling. Immediately, on seeing the accident, said PW-2 rushed to the spot and found out that driver of the jeep died on the spot whereas the owner of the jeep PW-3 sustained some injuries. He removed the injured to Rural Hospital at Sangola. It is also in the evidence of PW-2 that the present Applicant – driver of the truck tried to flee away from the spot. However, he was caught by the people who had gathered there and was produced before Sangola Police Station. PW-3 is the injured who was travelling in the same jeep and he was owner of the jeep. He also deposed as to the offending truck giving dash from the front side of the jeep by coming on the wrong side of the road. He also deposed substantially the same incident as to the manner in which the accident occurred. PW-4 and PW-5 are also the eye-witnesses and substantially gave the same facts as to the offending truck coming on the wrong side of the road and giving dash to the jeep thus causing death of the driver of the jeep and injuries to PW-3. Last prosecution witness PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. 5 REVN.6.11.sxw 5. Apart from the above substantive evidence of prosecuting witnesses which has been dealt with appropriately by the Trial Court and also by the first Appellate Court, there is a factual position as to finding of 32 feet long tyre marks of the truck appearing on the road at the place of the accident which indicate that the said truck was in high speed. When this position was brought to the notice of the learned Counsel for the Applicant, he placed reliance on the ratios propounded by the following authorities and submitted that mere speed of a vehicle cannot be taken as a criteria for deciding the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The said authorities are as under :- (1) AIR 1975 S.C. 1324 (Mrs. Shakila Khader, etc. v/s. Nausher Gama and Anr.) (2) 2006 Cri. L.J. 824 (Suruvu Parshaiah v/s. State of A.P.) 6. Though it is accepted that only high speed of a vehicle cannot attract the attribute of rash and negligent driving of 6 REVN.6.11.sxw the driver of the vehicle, however, certain other relevant facts as in the present matter are required to be considered inasmuch as the substantive evidence of eye-witnesses and the factual position as to the truck going on the wrong side of the road and giving dash to the jeep and causing death of the driver of the jeep and injury to the witness PW-3. Considering the said material as discussed by both the earlier Court, in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction maintained in the Criminal Appeal and as such, the present Criminal Revision Application must fail and the same is accordingly disposed of. 7. Criminal Revision Application No. 6 of 2011 stands dismissed. 8. In view of disposal of the main Criminal Revision Application No. 6 of 2011, nothing survives in the Criminal Application No. 5 of 2011 which is for Bail during the pendency of the Revision and hence, said Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)