Lower Courts Swayed Away With Emotion: Bombay HC Sets Aside Conviction Of Bus Driver In 1997 Pedestrian’s Death Case
|The Bombay High Court set aside the conviction of a bus driver being accused in 1997 case, involving death of a pedestrian.
The Court was deciding a criminal revision application filed by the accused against twin judgments of the Esplanade Court, Mumbai and the Sessions Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed, “Applying the test of evidence placed on record by the prosecution and from the totality of circumstances in the present case, it appears that both the Courts below appear to have been swayed away with emotion because of the demise of the injured. No doubt, the death has occurred. But whether it occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Applicant needs to be proven.”
The Bench added that the judgments passed by both the Courts are not based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record.
Advocate Chitrali Deshmukh appeared for the applicant/accused while APP Chandrakant Mali appeared for the respondent/State.
In this case, as per the prosecution, in 1997, BEST Bus was on its way from Chira Bazaar to Crawford market and it was driven by the applicant/accused. The bus took left turn at the junction of JSS Road at Shamaldas Gandhi Marg and while taking the left turn, it dashed with the deceased who fell down and became unconscious at that time. The accused stopped the bus and with the aid and assistance of the conductor and informant (traffic police constable), moved him to a hospital nearby where he was declared dead on arrival.
Thereafter, the informant lodged an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The double decker BEST Bus was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and it was found to be in a good condition without any mechanical defect. The accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of three months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… the conclusion drawn by both the Courts below that the bus was driven rashly and negligently by the Applicant merely on the basis of the deposition of PW-1 is not sustainable. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove that there was criminal rashness and culpable negligence on the part of the Applicant which could render him liable for punishment under Section 304A of the IPC and similar to what is held by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Bhupinder Sharma (1 st supra).”
The Court further noted that one of the most glaring aspects of this case is that, while convicting the accused, both the Courts brushed aside all parameters of contributory negligence and hence, the conclusion arrived at by the Courts appears to be totally contrary to law.
“The offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC against the accused are not made out. … In the present case it is seen that Applicant is on bail. It is seen that Applicant has already suffered incarceration of 2 months 8 days and has been enlarged on bail on 26.03.2003. However, in view of this judgment, the decisions of both the Courts below dated 28.02.2001 and 18.06.2002 stand quashed and set aside. The Bail bonds furnished by the Applicant are discharged”, it ordered.
The Court also directed that, as the accused must be of 59 years now and if retired from service, his retirement/annuity benefits for the same shall be disbursed to him.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application, quashed the impugned judgments, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Shivaji Damodar Karne v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:41802)