V. The Sate of Maharashtra  INSC 925 (10 December 1997)
NANVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK
10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:
Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik A.K. Chitale, Sr.
Adv., Dr. S.B. Masodkar and K.L. Taneja, Advs. with him for the appellant S.S. Shinde,
Adv. for D.M. Nargolkar, Advs. for the Respondent
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
two appeals are directed against the common judgment of the High Court of
Bombay in Crl.A.Nos. 136/86 and 41/86.
A.No.41/86 was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction by the trial
court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Crl. A.No. 136/86 was filed
by the state as the appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC. The High Court allowed the State appeal and dismissed the
appeal filled by the appellant.
the prosecution case that Shirdhar, a Social Worker, was complaining against
the appellant as he has parking a jeep near his house and thereby creating an
obstruction to the residents of that locality. That led to enmity between him
and the appellant.
days before the date of the incident, Shridhar had threatened the appellant
that he would complain about his behaviour to his superior officer, On 13.7.84.
at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant was seen grappling
with Shridhar on the road about 400 feet away from Shivni Bus stand. This
incident was witnessed by PWs 3 and 5 - Gajanan Murumkar and Shrikrishna. The
appellant and Shridhar were separated by PWs 2,3,5, and others, Shridhar at
that time told the appellant that it was open to him to put him in jail on that
day as he was drunk but he would see him on the next day after coming out of
the jail. The appellant thereupon went running towards the place where boring
work was going on and where he had kept his jeep bearing No. MTJ 7343, He
jumped into the jeep, started it and took it in reverse upto the intersection
of the road and then took it towards the deceased in high speed. PW 4 - Sultan
who was walking ahead of the deceased got frightened and as a result thereof
articles which he was carrying on his head fell down and he had to run for
over. The appellant proceeded ahead by taking his jeep on the wrong side of the
road and then knocked down Sridhar-deceased, Sridhar fell down and was run over
by the jeep. The appellant took his jeep ahead by a few feet and then brought
it back on the left side of the road. it was the prosecution case that the
appellant had dashed his jeep against Shridhar intentionally with a view to
cause his death.
trial court held that there was no strong motive for the appellant to murder
the deceased. It believed that the appellant had gone to the extreme wrong side
of the road and knocked down the deceased but in absence of any intention to
kill, the trial court held that the death of Shridhar was caused as a result of
rash and negligent driving of his jeep by the appellant. The trial Court,
therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 304A of the IPC and not under
Section 302 IPC.
High Court after reappreciating the evidence held that all the circumstances
proved by the evidence of PWs.
and 4 clearly indicate that what was done by the appellant was done
intentionally. The High Court took note of the fact that the place where the
incident took place was a Tar Road 19 feet in Width. At the time of the
incident, no other pedestrian or vehicle was passing on that road.
High court, therefore, took the view that there was no other reason for the
appellant to take his jeep in great speed on the wrong side of the road. In his
statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant denied these
circumstance as false.
all these factors into consideration, the High Court held that the appellant
had intentionally dashed his jeep against the deceased and run him over with an
intention to cause his death We have carefully gone through the judgment of the
High Court, We find that the High Court has dealt with each and every reason
given by the trial court and pointed out how those reasons are wrong.
counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out that any of the
reasons given by the High Court is wrong. So far as PW 4 is concerned, the High
Court has given goods reason to believe his presence at the time of incident
and for accepting his evidence. He has in clear terms stated that the appellant
had gone running towards the spot where the boring work was going on, The
appellant sat in the jeep which was standing there and took it in reserve upto
the intersection which meets the National Highway. The appellant then came in great speed with the result he
got frightened and ran for cover. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 also support this
version. Once it is believed that the appellant behaved in that manner and it
is also believed that there was no other reason for the appellant to go on the
wrong side of the Road, it has to be held that whatever the appellant had done
was done intentionally and the incident did not happen accidentally.
opinion, the High Court was right in allowing the State appeal and convicting
the appellant under Section 302 IPC. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.