Bombay High Court
Balasaheb Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:50670
WAKLE
MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2025.11.24
16:52:16 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2002
Balasaheb Nathrao Jadhav
Age: 35 years, Occ: Driver,
Residing of Shrikrishna-nagar
Akurdi Dist. Pune
(Presently at Yerawada Prison) ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
Ms. Saili N. Dhuru i/by Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, for the Applicant.
Ms. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
RESERVED ON : 13th NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21st NOVEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Challenge in this Revision Application is to the Judgment and Order
dated 06/04/2002, in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2001, passed by the Court
of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Pune. Thereby the said Court
dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the Judgment and Order dated
21/04/2001, in R.C.C. No.459 of 2000, passed by the Court of the learned
Ext. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khadki. District - Pune whereunder
the learned Magistrate had convicted the Applicant for commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of I.P.C. and
sentenced him as under:-
Section Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay
279 fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for 15 days;
Section Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 month and to pay
337 fine of Rs.250/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for 10 days;
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
Section Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine
338 of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment one month;
Section Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine
304A of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment one month.
2. Heard Ms. Dhuru, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant
and Ms. Shinde, the learned APP appearing for the Respondent - State.
Perused the record.
3. The prosecution story was that on 01/02/2000, at about 5.15 p.m.,
the informant Prakash Baburao Khedekar was proceeding towards Alandi
by driving his rickshaw bearing No. MTO-7998. He was carrying the
passengers namely Sindhubai Bhingarkar (PW2), Krishnaji Bhingarkar
(PW3), Damayanti Bhingarkar and one boy. In front of Magazine
Quarters, one P.M.T. bus bearing No.MH-12/9491, driven by the Applicant,
came from the Alandi side at a high speed and gave a dash to the right side
of the rickshaw. As a result, the rickshaw overturned and the passengers
fell on the road. The informant and the passengers sustained injuries.
Passers-by removed the injured persons to Sassoon Hospital but passenger
Damayanti succumbed to her injuries.
4. Immediately after the accident, the Applicant went to Alandi Road
Police Chowky and informed about the accident to S.Y. Pathan, PHC
(PW1). He visited the spot and recorded the Spot Panchanama with rough
sketch of the scene of the accident. He had inquired with the witnesses,
recorded the Inquest Panchanama and referred Damayanti's body for the
postmortem. He then arrested the Applicant and filed the Report/FIR
leading to registration of this crime under the relevant Sections of the
I.P.C. and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. P.S.I. Kshirsagar (PW5) recorded
the statement of witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet.
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
5. The learned Magistrate framed the charge of the alleged offences to
which the Applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence
was that he was not negligent in the accident.
6. The prosecution examined in the aforesaid 5 witnesses and relied
upon various documents to support their testimonies.
7. The entire incriminating circumstances were denied by the Applicant
in his statement under Secion 313 of Cr.P.C. The nature and focus of the
questions posed to the witnesses in the cross-examination were designed to
align with the Applicant's defence that at the relevant time he was driving
the bus towards Pune. The rickshaw was proceeding towards Alandi. When
that rickshaw reached at the middle portion of the right side of his bus, the
right side tire of that rickshaw burst. Consequently, the rickshaw driver lost
control over his rickshaw and his rickshaw dashed the Bus.
8. On appraisal of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court held the
Applicant guilty for causing the accident by driving his bus rash and
negligently. Therefore, convicted and sentenced him as noted in the
opening paragraph of this judgment. The Applicant's Appeal assailing the
conviction and sentence was turned down. Hence, this Revision.
9. Ms Dhuru, the learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that both
the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record in
accordance with facts and law. None of the alleged eye-witnesses have
deposed as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Applicant.
The Spot Panchnama clearly indicates that the road was sufficient broad to
allow the said vehicles to cross-over comfortably. Although the witnesses
have deposed that the bus was in a high speed, no tyre marks were seen at
the spot indicating that the bus was speeding. Therefore, according to the
learned Counsel, the finding of rash and negligent driving recorded against
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
the Applicant and his conviction and sentence for the said offence, is not
sustainable in law and it may be quashed and set aside.
10. In reply, Ms Shinde, the learned APP submitted that both the Courts
have properly appreciated the evidence on record as required in law. There
are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence passed by the trial Court which is affirmed by the
Appellate Court. On these grounds, the learned APP sought to dismiss the
Revision.
11. I have considered these submissions. In the trial Court, the defence
admitted/conceded to admit in evidence the following documents:- Spot
Panchanama (Exh.13), Inquest Panchnama (Exh.14), RTO Report of the
rickshaw (Exh.25), RTO Report of the P.M.T. Bus (Exh.26), Injury
Certificate of Prakash Khedekar (Exh.27) and Report of the Post-Mortem
of Damayanti (Exh.28).
Similarly, it was not disputed by the defence that the Applicant was
driving the P.M.T. Bus; that, the bus and the rickshaw were involved in the
accident, and that, Sindhu Bhingarkar had sustained certain hurts.
12. Therefore, the question is whether the said accident had resulted due
to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the Applicant or not. To get the
answer, the evidence led by the prosecution and the corresponding findings
recorded by the Courts below require consideration.
13. Negligence reflects want of attention and doing of something which a
prudent man would not do. Criminal negligence defined in Section 304A of
the I.P.C. means gross and culpable negligence or failure to exercise the
reasonable and proper care which it was imperative duty of the accused to
have exercised. For making out such offence punishable under Sections
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
279, 304A and 337 of the I.P.C., there must be proof that rash and
negligent act of the accused was a proximate cause of a death of a person or
hurt to a person. Direct nexus between death or hurt and rash and
negligent act is required to be proved by the prosecution for making out
offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the I.P.C.
14. Since the Applicant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court
in challenging the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the Courts
below holding that offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304A of the I.P.C. were proved against him, it must be kept in mind that
the revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised sparingly when there
is glaring error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice or when there is
procedural irregularity resulting in failure of justice. While exercising the
revisional jurisdiction, evidence cannot be appreciated and finding of fact
recorded by Court below cannot be interfered with unless it is shown to be
perverse. Sufficiency of evidence to hold the fact as proved cannot be gone
into albeit, want of evidence to hold a fact to be proved can certainly be
looked into. Keeping in mind these parameters in exercising revisional
jurisdiction, let us consider whether Courts below have committed error of
law or procedural irregularity while recording conviction against the
Applicant warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
15. The evidence of the three injured witnesses, i.e., PW2, PW3 and PW4
is that at the time of the accident, PW2, PW3 and deceased Damayanti
were travelling in the rickshaw. PW2 has specifically deposed that she had
undergone a by-pass surgery, therefore, PW4 was driving the rickshaw in a
very slow speed. The testimony of PW2 further indicates that when their
rickshaw arrived at the spot of the accident, the bus driven by the Applicant
gave dash to the right side of the rickshaw. PW3 deposed that the bus gave
dash to the right side rear wheel of the rickshaw. PW4 has testified that the
bus coming from the opposite side gave dash to his rickshaw on its right
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
side. They deposed that the rickshaw got turned turtle due to the said dash.
PW2 deposed that she had sustained fracture to right side rib/chest and
mute injury to cheek. PW3 deposed that he had sustained an injury below
his left eye and his left clavicle bone was dislocated. He had also sustained
fracture to the left leg. PW4 deposed that he had sustained a fracture due to
the accident. Thus, these witnesses have corroborated with each other as to
the cause of the accident. This evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW4 virtually
remained unchallenged in the cross-examination and it is corroborated
with the documents admitted by the defence during the trial.
16. The testimony of PW1 indicates that immediately after the accident
he had visited the spot and recorded the Spot Panchnama (Exh.13) and the
sketch-map (Exh.17) of the scene of the accident. The evidence of PW1 to
PW4, the Spot Panchnama and the RTO Inspection Report of the rickshaw
clearly show that the rickshaw was heavily damaged due to the dash by the
bus. This fact indicates that the dash was forceful.
17. As noted above, the sketch-map was not disputed by the defence. It
was also referred in the cross-examination of PW1. Admittedly, the bus was
proceeding towards Pune and the rickshaw was going toward Alandi. The
road was running north-south as deposed by PW1. As recorded in the Spot
Panchnama, the road was 17 feet broad with 5 feet kachcha road abutting
its both sides. Thus, it was apparent that the bus and the rickshaw could
have easily pass-over. However, the bus dashed the rickshaw. The
Applicant failed to explain as to why the bus dashed the rickshaw when the
road was sufficiently broad at the place of the accident. PW2 had
categorically deposed that the rickshaw was driven in a very slow speed.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the evidence
indicates that road was little curve at the spot of the accident. However,
from the photos and the sketch-map it cannot be perceived that the
Applicant and PW4 were not able to see each-other's vehicle due to the
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
curve. Considering the evidence as a whole and the sketch-map, it appears
that the bus went on the side of the rickshaw due to that curve. Therefore,
the conclusion is inevitable that the Applicant was not driving his bus
keeping proper lookout at the road and in a careful manner. At the same
time, the bus was speeding. Driving a heavy vehicle in such a manner is
always dangerous. However, the Applicant ignored that danger without any
excuse or reason. Therefore, and having regard to the principle 'res ipsa
loquitur', the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court both have rightly
concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the bus.
18. The post-mortem report recorded that the cause of the death of
Damayanti was "shock due to multiple injuries" suffered in the accident.
The injury certificate (Exh.27) show that Prakash Khedekar (PW4) had
sustained a fracture to his right forearm. PW2 and PW3 have deposed the
specific injuries sustained by them. Said injuries were not disputed in the
cross-examination.
19. Ms Dhuru submitted that PW2, PW3 and PW4 have not specifically
deposed that at the time of the accident, the bus was driven in a rash and
negligent manner. PW3 and PW4 have merely deposed that the bus was in
a high speed at the time of the accident. However, this evidence is not
sufficient to conclude that the bus was driven rash and negligently, and it
led to this accident. Therefore, both the Courts below have erred in
recording the finding of rash and negligent driving against the Applicant.
To support this submission Ms Dhuru has relied upon the decisions of this
Court in Shivaji Santu Zanzad v. The State of Maharashtra 1 and
in Shivaji Damodhar karne v. The State of Maharashtra2.
1. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3579
2. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3379
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
20. However, as I have discussed and concluded above, in the case in
hand, there is sufficient evidence by the prosecution which has proved that
at the time of the accident the bus was driven in a rash and negligent
manner. In so far as the cited decisions are concerned, there was no
evidence to establish the fact of rash and negligent driving on the part of
the Applicant therein. As such, on facts, the said cases are distinguishable.
21. Ms Dhuru, the learned Counsel highlighted that in the cross-
examination of PW1 it has come that, the tyres of the rickshaw were plain.
This fact is also evident from the Spot Panchnama. She, therefore,
emphatically contended that since the tyres of the rickshaw were worn out,
its right rear tyre got burst and consequently, the rickshaw went towards
its right and dashed the bus. However, PW1 has clearly denied this claim
when he was so suggested in the cross-examination. That apart, as
observed by the learned Magistrate, from the evidence it appears that the
right rear side tyre of the rickshaw got damaged due to the dash by the bus.
Therefore, the version of the defence does not appear probable.
22. In the result, no interference is required in so far as the conviction of
the Applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of the I.P.C. is
concerned. Now, turning to the alternative argument.
23. Ms Dhuru submitted that the incident is almost 25 years old, and
since then the Applicant has faced this prosecution. This has burdened the
Applicant economically as well as mentally. Now the Applicant is about 60
years old. He has to shoulder various family responsibilities managing the
old age related health issues. She, therefore, submitted to reduce the
sentence to the period he has already undergone, i.e., 2 months and 18
days. I have found substance in these submissions by Ms Dhuru. Therefore,
and having regard to the sentencing policy, I deem it appropriate to mold
the sentence by upholding the conviction.
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
24. In view thereof, the conviction recorded by both the Courts is
maintained, however the sentence needs to be modified as below:-
(i) Criminal Revision is partly allowed.
(ii) Conviction of the Applicant under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
304 A of the I.P.C., in R.C.C. No.459 of 2000, recorded by the
Court of the learned Ext. Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Khadki. District - Pune is maintained, instead of sentencing
the Applicant as directed by the Courts below, he is sentenced
for the said offences as under:-
a) Under Section 279 of the I.P.C. the Applicant is
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3
months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer
imprisonment for 10 days;
b) Under Section 337 of the I.P.C. the Applicant is
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3
months and to pay fine of Rs.250/-, in default to suffer
imprisonment for 10 days;
c) Under Section 338 of the I.P.C. the Applicant is
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3
months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer
imprisonment for one month;
d) Under Section 304 A of the I.P.C. the Applicant is
sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 4
months and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default to suffer
imprisonment for one month;
e) All the sentences shall run concurrently extending the
benefit of set off.
(iii) On recovery of the fine amount, it shall be equally paid to the
injured PW4 and LRs of deceased Damayanti Bhingarkar as
compensation in terms of Section 357 (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 395 (1)
Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Manoj 1-REVN-161-2002.doc
(iv) Bail bonds of the Applicant stand cancelled.
(v) Applicant Balasaheb Nathrao Jadhav shall surrender before
the trial Court on or before 28/11/2025, at 11.00. a.m., to
undergo the remaining sentence.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
