MAHENDRA MADHUKAR JAGDALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal revision application, the applicantaccused challenges the judgment and order of conviction passed by the J.M.F.C. Pathardi, dated 10.5.2004 in S.C.C. No. 225 of 2003 and the said judgment and order is confirmed by the I Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar by judgment and order dated 11.7.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2004.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision application are as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant-accused submits that there is no direct evidence in this case. The prosecution case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court considered the position of vehicle and the spot of accident and though there is no direct reference of maxim "res ipsa loquitur" so as to shift the burden on the accused, the learned Magistrate has held that it was for the accused to explain about the accident in question since the prosecution has proved the basic facts and failing therein, further held that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. Learned counsel submits that the maxim "res ipsa loquitur" is inapplicable in criminal proceedings. It is always for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Learned counsel submits that even if the said maxim "res ipsa loquitur" is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the attendant circumstances on record indicates that the said maxim cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the basis of the attendant circumstances, the inference about rash and negligent driving on the part of the applicant-accused could not have been drawn.