SHEIKH YUSUF SHEIKH KARIM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Shaikh Yusuf Sheikh Karim was tried for offence punishable under section304-A of I. P. C. for causing deaths of Atmaram and Kanta while driving his truck in rash and negligent manner. THE learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Washim, in Summary Criminal Case No. 228/1994 by the judgment dated11.3.1998 convicted the applicant for the offence under section304-A of I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for 2 years. THE Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, in Criminal Appeal No. 9/1998, filed by the applicant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him, by judgment dated-31.12.1999 confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. THE applicant has preferred this revision challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY on11.12.1993, the applicant was driving his truck bearing No. MH 29 6086 on the Highway from Washim to Hingoli and on way the accident took place wherein the truck driven by the applicant and Jeep bearing No. MH 22 A 9133 collided and driver of the said jeep namely Atmaram and one Kanta who was travelling in the jeep died on the spot. The incident was recorded by the applicant himself at Police Station Washim. On receiving the report the police visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot panchanama Exhibit 39. They noticed that the truck was on the road side on its left and the above two passengers in the Jeep were found to be dead in the Jeep itself. In the panchanama it was specifically stated that the breaks were applied by the applicant before the truck came to halt. This was indicated by presence of one 160 feet length tyre marks seen on the place of occurrence. The two press reporters - Vishwanath (P.W.2) and Arun (P.W.3) had seen the spot after the incident and therefore, in their presence spot panchanama was made. After completing investigation the charge sheet was filed against the applicant and he stood charged for offence under section304-A. At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) IN fact none for the applicant appeared though the matter has been adjourned. I have heard Mr. Sonare, learned A. P. P. for respondent - State. He has taken me through the evidence on record. He supported the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court. IN the present revision application the applicant has raised several grounds challenging the order of conviction. It is contended that the courts below grossly erred in coming to the conclusion about the rash and negligent act of driving merely on the basis of guessing of panch witnesses. It is also contended that high speed by itself cannot be treated as the vehicle being driven in rash and negligent manner. The applicant applied the breaks well in advance. It is contended that the courts below should not have attributed rashness and negligence without considering the fact that nothing could be brought on record about the driver of the Jeep and as to how he was driving the jeep. It is contended that when there was no eye witness to the incident the courts below should have appreciated the circumstances in correct perspective and should have held that the fault was that of the driver of the Jeep. It is contended that the findings recorded by the courts below is perverse and based on surmises and guessing and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.