PRADEEP N. SHETGAONKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has taken exception to the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned JMFC dated 01/10/2012 and which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal vide its judgment and order dated 29/01/2015. The parties would be referred to as the applicant and the State for brevity's sake hereinafter.

(2.) The State had arraigned the applicant as an accused in the FIR No.70 of 2009 for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304A IPC on the charge that on 29/04/2009 at 12.15 hours, the applicant while driving the mini truck bearing the registration No.GA-03-T-4941 from Kansarwane towards Chandel had driven the truck on a public road in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life and thereby dashed against the Activa Scooter bearing No.GA-03- F-4763 at Chandel causing grievous hurt to the rider and the pillion who subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The learned JMFC held him guilty and convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338, 304A IPC and Section 134 (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (the Act, for short) sentencing him to different terms of imprisonment apart from fine and which came to be upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa.

(3.) Heard Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant who contended that the learned JMFC convicted and sentenced the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 months for the offence under Section 279 IPC, one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 IPC and three months for the offence under Section 304A IPC apart from 10 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 134 (a) and (b) of the Act. The learned JMFC misread the evidence on record and so too the Additional Sessions Judge when there was no evidence on record to show that the applicant was rash and negligent. He adverted to the impugned judgment rendered by the two Courts below, referred to the evidence of the injured and the eyewitness and submitted that there was no clarity in the case of the State against the applicant. There was no legal evidence to sustain the conviction against the applicant and therefore it was a fit case to interfere with the judgments below. He placed reliance in State of Karnataka v/s. Satish [(1998) 8 SCC 493) and Pandurang Sitaram Bhagwat v/s. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 9 SCC 44] while wrapping up his arguments that there was a palpable error in the passing of the impugned judgments and besides the panchanama was suspicious and doubtful.