VITHAL MAHADU RAVATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by J. M. F. C. , Kirkee, Pune, dated 7/2/1992 whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable U/s. 279, 304-A, 337 of IPC and Section 78 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 750.00 for the offence punishable U/s. 279 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of IPC, simple imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs. 500.00 for the offence punishable U/s. 337 of IPC and simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs. 50.00 for the offence punishable U/s. 78 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This order was confirmed in appeal by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal appeal No. 30/92.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was no evidence to attribute the rash and negligent act to the petitioner and therefore, the conviction which was based on the circumstantial evidence was liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that both the courts below erred in recording the finding that the bus was in high speed when no evidence to that effect was given by any of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention on the finding given by both the courts below. He submitted that said finding was liable to be set aside since it was based on conjecture and surmises. He submitted that from the evidence on record it was clear that there were two probabilities in respect of incident which had taken place and the story put forth by the defence was more probable and in such case benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused.