YASIN SHEKU NIGEWAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the APP for the State were heard on the earlier date. The applicant was prosecuted at the instance of the State for offences under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code) and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) which is punishable under Section 177 of the said Act. The applicant was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur. The applicant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the Penal Code. He was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100/-for the offence under the said Act of 1988 and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The order of conviction has been confirmed in an appeal preferred by the applicant. The Revision application was admitted by this Court and interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (d) was granted thereby suspending the operation of the sentence.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has taken me through the notes of evidence and other relevant documents on record of the trial Court. He invited my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submitted that taking the evidence as it is, rash and negligent driving on the part of the applicant was not at all established. He submitted that the Courts below have failed to consider the real controversy namely whether the applicant was guilty of rash or negligent driving of the truck. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the evidence on record. He submitted that the Sessions Court has not really dealt with the issue of rashness or negligence. He submitted that the impugned orders are perverse. The learned APP submitted that in the limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and there is no scope to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the notes of evidence. The case of prosecution in brief needs to be adverted to before considering the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the parties on merits. The allegation against the applicant is that on 28th May, 1995 at about 10.30 p.m, he was driving his truck bearing No. MH 13-B 4466. It is alleged that when the truck was near Multani bakery on Solapur-Hotgi Road, the applicant was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner thereby endangering the human life. It is alleged that he caused the death of a 5 year child by the name Chhaya who was standing by the side of the road. Further allegation is that after committing the offence, the applicant failed to give information of the incident to the nearest police station as soon as possible and in any event within 24 hours from the time of the incident.