Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2003. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Madhav Vitthal Bansode. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.M. Ganachari, A.P.P. and For Respondents: Vijay Y. Patil, Advocate |
| Judges | A.I.S. Cheema, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 357, 357A, 377, 377(1); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 279, 304A; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 184; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 11, 3, 4 |
| Judgement Date | April 25, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A.I.S. Cheema, J.
-
This Appeal by State has been filed against the orders passed by the Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal on 31st May 2003 in Summary Criminal Case No. 32 of 1999 whereby the trial Court, while convicting the Respondent -accused for offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, instead of passing sentence of imprisonment or fine, directed his release on the bond of Rs. 5000/- and the bond of "one month's period contemplated in Section 4" of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ("Probation Act" in brief). The present Appeal was filed by the State seeking leave under Section 377 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." in brief), with prayer to enhance the sentence awarded by the J.M.F.C. The Appeal was admitted on 5th October 2005.
-
In brief, the case is as follows:--
"(A). On 17th December 1998 at about 4.15 p.m., complainant Raman Chaudhari (PW-1) filed F.I.R. with Bhusawal City Police Station informing that when he was at his tailor's shop in the market, he came to know that Bhanudas S/o. Gopal, the brother of the complainant, had met with an accident near Hambardikar Bakery. He went there. School Bus No. MH-19/2446 was standing there on the road. There was blood near the rear left wheel of the bus. There was big crowd. He came to the hospital and found that body of Bhanudas, a 13 years old boy was lying on the table and that the boy was dead. The boy was going to attend classes on cycle when the incident had occurred.
(B). Police recorded Spot Panchnama (Exhibit 18) at about 6.00 - 6.30 p.m. The incident had occurred in Hambardikar square. The child had come from South towards North and was approaching the square when the incident occurred. Police recorded statements of witnesses. Other necessary steps as required by investigation were taken. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed."
-
The J.M.F.C. explained particulars for offence under Section 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief). Particulars were also explained about Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution brought on record evidence of five witnesses. After holding the trial, the Magistrate acquitted the accused of offence under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
-
Against the conviction under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the accused did not file any Appeal. The State has not filed this Appeal against the acquittal under Section 279 and 304-A of I.P.C. Before proceeding to discuss the prayer of the State to enhance the sentence, it would be appropriate to make a quick reference to the evidence which has come on record.
-
There is evidence of PW-1 Raman Chaudhari - the complainant, uncle of the victim. There is also evidence of PW-3 Gopal Chaudhari, father of the victim. The evidence of these witnesses shows that PW-4 Shaligram Teli who happens to be acquainted with them, reached the spot of incident soon after the incident and on identifying the victim, had informed the brothers. The evidence is that these brothers rushed to the spot and having seen the spot, proceeded to the hospital to find the victim dead. PW-2 Mahadeo Bonde is Panch of the spot who proved Panchnama Exhibit 18. PW-5 Kailas Barhate is the eye witness.
-
Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:--
"184. Driving dangerously.--Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to...
To continue reading
Request your trial