VIMANJAN HANUMANTA DEVARKONDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, the revision petitioner/ original accused is challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No.882 of 2014 on 3rd Jan. 2017 thereby dismissing his appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 02/09/2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 51st Court, Kurla in C.C.No.356/PW/2000 convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for the sake of brevity) and under Sec. 134(a) and (b) read with Sec. 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ("M.V. Act" for the sake of brevity). The learned trial Magistrate upon conviction of the revision petitioner had sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months apart from payment of fine of Rs.1000/in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Sec. 337 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Sec. 304A of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year apart from payment of fine of Rs.2000/, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. For the offence punishable under Sec. 134(a) and (b) read with Sec. 187 of the M.V.Act, he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that on 29/03/2000, the revision petitioner/accused had driven a Maruti van bearing No.MH02JA228 in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash of that vehicle to Sugrabi and her son Abdul Rafiq. The incident, according to the prosecution case, took place near Halav bridge of Kurla in front of Kudiya Badlu Chawl. The FIR (Exh.5) of the crime in question came to be lodged by P.W.No.1 Yasmin Abdul Khalid on 29/03/2000 itself. Accordingly Crime Registration No.72 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of the Penal Code and under Sections 134(a) and (b) read with Sec. 187 of the M.V.Act came to be registered. The revision petitioner/accused came to be arrested on 30/03/2000. Spot was inspected and spot panchanama came to be drawn. On completion of routine investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and after due trial conviction came to be recorded in C.C.No.356/PW/2000 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla on 02/09/2014. The accused came to be sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved by this conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused filed an appeal bearing No.882 of 2014 which came to be dismissed on 03/01/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai by the impugned Judgment and Order.

(3.) I heard the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner/original accused. He argued that according to the prosecution case, the incident in question took place on 29/03/2000 at about 11.30 p.m. There is no evidence regarding availability of light on the spot of incident. There were in all five persons in the vehicle. It is the case of prosecution that nobody was apprehended on the spot of the incident. Hence, in submission of the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, evidence regarding identification of the revision petitioner is highly doubtful. He further argued that prosecution witnesses were not knowing the accused and no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution. Hence, offence is not proved. It is further argued that there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner was under influence of the liquor as stated by the witnesses for the prosecution. It is further argued that the prosecution has examined P.W.No.6 Raju - owner of the Maruti van in question. But there is no evidence to show that to whom the vehicle was entrusted by Raju Jadhav. All witnesses examined by the prosecution, in submission of the learned Advocate for the revision petitioner, are interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence is not reliable. With this, it is argued that for want of sufficient evidence, the revision petitioner/accused is certainly entitled for benefit of doubt.