[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mathew Domnic Pareira vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 February, 2026
Author: R.N.Laddha
Bench: R.N.Laddha
2026:BHC-AS:7914 Digitally signed
by CHITRA
SANJAY
CHITRA SONAWANE
SANJAY Date:
SONAWANE 2026.02.16
18:39:57
+0530
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No.477 of 2003
Mathew Domnic Pereira
Age-58 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o Bolinj, Zapkewadi, Tal- Vasai,
Dist - Thane -401303 ... Applicant.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent.
---
Ms Aishwarya Sharma appointed Advocate (Legal Aid) for
the applicant.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP for the respondent/State.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 16 February 2026.
P.C. :
This revision application takes exception to the
concurrent findings of conviction for offences punishable
under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code
('IPC') recorded by the judgment and order dated 26 March
2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jawhar, in RCC No.61 of 2002, and confirmed vide the
judgment and order dated 6 October 2003 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Criminal
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
Appeal No.25 of 2003.
2. In brief, the prosecution's case is that on 11 February
2000, Krishna Gaikwad and Vishnu Mahale were
proceeding to school in Alonda from Vasuri on a bicycle
when, approximately one kilometre from Vasuri, a
motorcycle approaching from the opposite direction at high
speed allegedly lost control and collided with the bicycle,
causing both riders to fall and sustain injuries. They were
subsequently taken to the hospital, where Krishna Gaikwad
succumbed to his injuries.
3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the
applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 304A,
279, 338 and 337 of the IPC, and Section 184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act'). The applicant pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the
prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, viz.,
Bablya Sona Gaikwad, the father of the deceased and
injured (PW-1); Pandurang Kanhu Mahale, the eyewitness
(PW-2); Nirmala Rangnath Bhoye, the eyewitness (PW-3);
Kashi Chima Ghute, the eyewitness (PW-4); Vishnu
Tulshiram Mahale, the injured (PW-5); Motiram Yeshvant
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
Gavli, the eyewitness (PW-6); and Hirasing Rathod
Thangsing, the investigating officer (PW-7). After the
prosecution closed its evidence, the accused was questioned
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('CrPC'), as to the incriminating circumstances against him,
but he denied them as false. The accused did not lead any
evidence in his defence.
4. After appraisal of the evidence, while the learned trial
Court returned a finding of guilt against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the
IPC, it acquitted him of the offences punishable under
Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC, and Section 184 of the
MV Act. The applicant was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.500/-,
with default stipulations, for the offence under Section 279
IPC and undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay
a fine of Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulations, for the
offence under Section 304A IPC. In appeal, the learned
appellate Court maintained the conviction and modified the
sentence by setting aside the term of imprisonment and
enhancing the fine. The applicant was directed to pay a fine
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
of Rs.1,500/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and
Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the concurrent finding of
conviction, the applicant has preferred the present revision
application.
5. Ms Aishwarya Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the applicant, submits that the trial Court and
the appellate Court misread the prosecution evidence, failed
to evaluate it in proper perspective, and were influenced by
several assumptions that cannot be sustained based on the
material on record. It is contended that none of the
prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that the
applicant was riding the motorcycle at the relevant time,
nor has any witness identified him as the driver of the
offending vehicle. There is no documentary or oral evidence
establishing ownership of the motorcycle in the name of the
applicant. The evidence of PW-5, at the highest, indicates
that the motorcycle was allegedly being driven at a high
speed; however, it is wholly silent as to the prevailing road
conditions, traffic density, visibility, or other attendant
circumstances essential to determine rashness or negligence.
It is further urged that the Courts below erred in convicting
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
the applicant under Sections 279 and 304A IPC while
simultaneously recording a finding that the applicant was
not driving the motorcycle in a dangerous manner and
acquitting him of the offence under Section 184 of the MV
Act.
6. According to the learned Counsel, mere high speed, in
the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating culpable
rashness or negligence, cannot sustain a conviction under
Sections 279 or 304A IPC. The prosecution, it is argued,
has failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the
applicant was driving the motorcycle in a manner so rash or
negligent as to endanger human life or to cause injury. The
conviction rests substantially upon the occurrence of the
accident itself, without proof of the essential ingredients of
the offences alleged. In support of her contentions, Ms
Sharma relies upon the decisions of this Court in (i) State of
Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Vitthal Mule, Criminal Appeal
No.392 of 1999 dated 15 February 2017, and (ii) State of
Maharashtra Vs. Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad, Criminal
Appeal No.1148 of 2004 dated 5 March 2020.
7. On the other hand, Mr Arfan Sait, the learned
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/
State, supported the concurrent findings of conviction and
submitted that no perversity, illegality or material
irregularity has been demonstrated so as to warrant
interference in revisional jurisdiction. It is contended that
the testimony of PW-5, being that of an injured witness,
carries greater evidentiary value and establishes that the
motorcycle came at high speed and collided with the
bicycle. It is further submitted that the factum of the death
of Krishna Gaikwad is not disputed.
8. This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions canvassed across the Bar and perused the
records.
9. A careful examination of the evidence reveals that PW-
1 deposed that the deceased, a student of the 8th standard,
was pedalling an adult bicycle while the injured was seated
on the bar. PW-2 deposed that he was engaged in
agricultural work in a field abutting the road when he heard
the sound of a collision. Upon hearing the noise, he
immediately proceeded to the spot and found Krishna and
Vishnu lying on the roadway. In cross-examination, PW-2
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
stated that the road from Vasuri towards Jawhar is
descending and flanked by trees, with pits along the
roadside and a heap of soil on one side. He unequivocally
reiterated that Krishna was riding an adult bicycle. PW-3, in
her examination-in-chief, stated that she was working in the
field adjacent to the road when a motorcycle came from
Jawhar side, and the injured and the deceased came from
Vasuri side. In cross-examination, she deposed that they
reached the spot after hearing the sound of the accident and
that there were pits adjacent to the road. The testimony of
PW-4 is substantially on the same lines as that of PW-3, both
as to the location of the witnesses and the general
circumstances surrounding the occurrence. PW-6 similarly
deposed that the deceased was pedalling the bicycle while
the injured was seated on the bar. He described the road as
descending and admitted that the deceased was unable to
control the bicycle, as a result of which the accident
occurred. PW-7, the Investigating Officer, stated in cross-
examination that the road at the place of occurrence was
zig-zag in nature and descending. He further deposed that
repair work was in progress at the relevant time.
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
10. Notably, the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6
does not furnish any specific particulars as to the manner in
which the motorcycle was driven so as to constitute rashness
or negligence. None of these witnesses identified the
applicant as the rider of the motorcycle, nor do they
attribute to him any overt or specific act. On the contrary,
their testimony, read cumulatively, indicates that an adult-
sized bicycle was being ridden by a child studying in the 8th
standard, with another minor seated on the bar, on a road
described as descending, zig-zag and under repair as well as
being bordered by irregular features such as pits and soil
heaps, while the motorcycle was stated to be proceeding
uphill from the opposite direction.
11. The testimony of PW-5, the injured witness, reveals
that he was seated on the crossbar of the bicycle while the
deceased was pedalling it. He stated that a motorcycle
approached at a high speed and collided with their bicycle,
causing both of them to fall onto the road and sustain
injuries. During cross-examination, PW-5 acknowledged
that he had seen the motorcycle coming from the front. He
denied the defence suggestion that he had held the handle
of the bicycle and thereby contributed to the collision. He
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
further clarified that the road at the relevant spot involved a
slight turn and was not a steep descent. Notably, his
evidence does not elaborate upon the manner in which the
motorcycle was being driven, the relative positioning of the
two vehicles immediately prior to impact, or any
surrounding circumstances from which it could be inferred
that the speed was excessive in light of the prevailing road
conditions.
12. Upon a careful perusal of the evidence on record, it
transpires that the Courts below appear to have inferred
rashness and negligence merely from the occurrence of the
accident and the allegation of speed, which approach is
legally unsustainable. Speed, by itself, is not synonymous
with rashness or negligence unless it is shown to be
excessive, having regard to the road conditions, traffic
situation, and surrounding circumstances.
13. In the present case, the evidence on record reflects that
the road at the locus of the incident was descending and zig-
zag in nature, with pits along its margins and repair work
underway at the relevant time. Apart from these
surrounding circumstances, the prosecution has failed to
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
adduce any clear, cogent, or consistent evidence elucidating
the manner of driving, the relative positioning of the
vehicles immediately prior to impact, the state of visibility,
or other attendant factors necessary to assess whether the
speed was, in fact, excessive or hazardous as to imperil
human life. In the absence of such foundational and
material particulars, it cannot be inferred that the vehicle
was driven in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger
human life. A finding of criminal culpability cannot be
predicated merely upon the occurrence of an accident,
bereft of proof establishing the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged.
14. Where the conviction is founded on presumptions
rather than proof of the essential ingredients of the offence,
and where material evidence has been overlooked or
misappreciated, interference by this Court in its revisional
jurisdiction is not only permissible but warranted. The
findings recorded by the Courts below, in the present case,
are thus vitiated by legal infirmity and perversity.
15. In light of the foregoing, this Court deems it fit to
allow the present revision application. Accordingly, the
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
Chitra Sonawane 7-REVN-477-2003.doc
judgment and order dated 6 October 2003 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Criminal
Appeal No.25 of 2003, and the judgment and order dated
26 March 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Jawhar, in RCC No.61 of 2002, convicting the
applicant, are quashed and set aside. The applicant stands
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and
304A of the IPC.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
____________________________________________
16 February 2026
