RAMA MAINAJI BHOSALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against concurrent findings of learned Judicial Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge as regards guilt of the petitioner for offences punishable U/s 304(A) and 279 of the I.P. Code. He was convicted and sentenced under both the counts.

(2.) The petitioner was driving a truck vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ/I-3655 in the evening of July 5, 1993. There were three passengers in the cabin of the truck, including deceased Shamrao Patil, P.W.2 Daga and P.W.3 Laxman. Another truck vehicle came from opposite direction. The petitioner took his truck vehicle on left side by giving cut to avoid possible collision with the on coming truck vehicle. The petitioner, however, lost control over his vehicle. Therefore, his truck vehicle went astray, left the road and dashed a Neem tree. One of the passenger i.e. Shamrao Patil was seriously injured whereas other two passengers sustained certain injuries. Shamrao Patil lateron succumbed to the injuries. His son lodged F.I.R.

(3.) There are concurrent findings of both the Courts as regards rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. It is difficult to interfere with such finding. There is no reason to reappreciate the evidence which is assessed by both the Courts because as there appears no perversity in such finding. It has come on record that the truck vehicle driven by the petitioner was proceeding from middle of the road. The Petitioner ought to have taken due care and the truck vehicle should have been ordinarily on his left hand side beyond the middle line of the road. The accident occurred when the petitioner gave sudden jerk and twisted the steering wheel, so as to give cut to the on-coming truck vehicle and in that process lost the balance on the steering wheel. The act of the petitioner was definitely rash and he drove the vehicle negligently. There is no dispute about the fact that Shamrao Patil died as a result of the accident, whereas the eye witnesses P.W.2 Daga and P.W.3 Laxman were injured as a result of the said accident. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable U/s 304(A) and 279 of the I.P.C. is quite legal and correct.