Baburao Dinkar Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 May, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:21317
           Digitally
           signed by
           ANANT
ANANT      KRISHNA
                                                                                      REVN.44.2015 @1.doc

KRISHNA    NAIK
NAIK       Date:               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           2026.05.05
           19:35:25                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           +0530
                               CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2015

             Baburao Dinkar Shinde                                     ... Applicant
                   versus
             The State of Maharashtra                                  ...Respondent
                                                  ***
             Ms Keral Mehta i/b. Mr Niranjan Mundargi, for the Applicant.
             Ms Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP, for the Respondent / State.
             PSI Deshpande, Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, is present

                                                      ***
                                                  CORAM         : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

                                                  DATED         : 5th MAY 2026
             P.C.:

1. This Revision is filed under section 397 read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('CrPC' for short), challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2014, dismissing the said Appeal and confirming judgment and order dated 30.12.2013 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in CC No.1485/PS/2007, thereby convicting the Applicant in the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).

2. The case of the prosecution in short is that Complainant Mr. Shamsunder P. Waghmare along with his friends/neighbours Mr. Tanvir Shaikh and Mohammed Ansari were going to Mahim Darga in Bus No. 376 on 29.03.2007. At about 08.45 P.M. when the bus came to Mahim Depot and all the persons started alighting from the bus, the Complainant was also

REVN.44.2015 @1.doc

trying to alight from the bus from the front door of the bus. However, while his one foot was in the bus and another on the ground, the Applicant, who was driver of the BEST bus allegedly took the bus forward and the complainant fell and got injured by left front wheel of the bus. That thereafter the conductor and friends of complainant took him to the hospital.

3. FIR came to be registered being C.R. No. 63 of 2007 with Mahim Police Station. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. The charges were framed. The Applicant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution witnesses examined 4 witnesses i.e. PW-1-Complainant himself, PW-2 and PW-3 friends of the Complainant and PW-4 the Investigating Officer. Concerned Magistrate convicted the Applicant for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) of 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default one month's imprisonment for offence under section 279 of IPC. The Applicant was sentenced to R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- and in default imprisonment of 15 days for offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC. The Applicant was also sentenced to R.I. of 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default imprisonment of 3 months for offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. The Applicant filed the said appeal and the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the Appeal thereby confirming the conviction and sentence.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the witnesses are complainant and his friends. That the driver has taken specific and plausible defence that there was crowd at the relevant time in the bus and people

REVN.44.2015 @1.doc

were alighting even before the bus had come to proper stop. That the entry gate of the depot being narrow, the bus was being reversed and taken forward for proper entry. That the conductor of the bus, who is stated to be present at the time of incident, is not examined. That there was no clarity about whether the Complainant was trying to alight from front door or back door. That there is confusion about the injury to the leg. That the Complainant has clearly contributed to happening of the accident and therefore Applicant cannot be convicted. She relied upon the following Judgments in support of her case:

(a) Mohammed Aynuddin Alias Miyam vs. State of AP (2000) 7 SCC 72

(b) Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 7 SCC 353

(c) Shivaji Damodar Karne vs. State of Maharashtra (2024) SCC OnLine Bom 3379

5. Learned APP, on the other hand supported the impugned order. She submitted that the evidence on record has been properly appreciated and no interference is required.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned order.

7. The Applicant had given statement under Section 313 of CrPC admitting that he was driver of the said bus. However, he has taken specific defence that at the relevant time since there was a rumor of sweet-water coming out of sea near Mahim Darga, the people were visiting the spot in crowd and the buses were full including the bus involved and it was a fair- like situation. That at the second last stop, he had applied the prohibitary bar for the passengers showing 'not to alight'. However, public were not

REVN.44.2015 @1.doc

obeying. That at the relevant time, he was taking left turn inside the gate of the depot, when half of the bus was inside the gate and half was outside, he had seen the left mirror and he had also seen on the right mirror because people were coming out and he was trying to get the bus safely inside the gate. That at that time suddenly somebody shouted that someone has fallen down and thereafter he immediately stopped the bus.

8. In view of the aforesaid statement and specific defence, since the Applicant had admitted his presence as bus driver, it was the duty of the prosecution to clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Complainant fell down and got injured 'solely because of the fault of the Applicant'. The Complainant/PW-1 has stated that he was sitting in the last row of the bus and there were 5 to 6 persons. He has stated that conductor was present, who had taken him to the hospital. He has stated that he does not recollect the face of the driver. The Complainant has not stated from which door (front or back) that he alighted. The Complainant has been cross-examined in a scanty manner. However, Complainant has admitted in cross-examination that the bus stop inside the bus depot was at a distance of 20 feet from the place of incident. This clearly means that the bus had not reached the stop and the complainant tried to alight it beforehand. This also clearly indicates that complainant definitely contributed to happening of the incident.

9. The friends of the Complainant-PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that complainant alighted from front door. However PW2-Mr. Akram has stated that there were 20 to 25 persons and the Complainant has said that there were 5 to 6 persons. So position about crowd is not clear and it is contradictory.

10. PW2-Mr. Akram has initially stated that Complainant's right leg was

REVN.44.2015 @1.doc

amputated, but thereafter stated that his left leg was amputated. Medical certificate shows that the Complainant had developed gangrenous changes and therefore left lower limb was amputated on life saving basis. The Complainant has also stated in the statement to police that he was already ill and resting at house and in the evening, he left with his friend for visiting Darga. It is not clear as to from which illness the Applicant was suffering or whether it had anything to do with amputation.

11. The Investigation officer has admitted in cross-examination that the bus stop was inside the depot. He has also admitted that he has not asked the complainant what particular stop he had taken ticket for.

12. In Mohammed Aynuddin Alias Miyam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the case under Section 304A of IPC. In the said judgment, since the material was insufficient to conclude that victim fell down only because of negligence of the bus driver, as a corollary, it was held that conviction of the bus driver is unsustainable. In Braham Dass (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the same offence as involved in the present case i.e. 279 of IPC, where since there was no evidence to show that the driver had knowledge that the passenger was on the rooftop of the bus, it was held that the sole negligence of the driver is not proved and therefore the driver was acquitted. In Shivaji Damodar Karne (Supra), the Hon'ble Judge of this Court was considering the same offence as in the present case, and when there was evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased while crossing the road, concurrent conviction of the driver was set aside and the driver was acquitted.

13. In the present case also, considering the specific defence of crowd and people alighting from bus even before the stop came, taken by the

REVN.44.2015 @1.doc

Applicant/driver, the prosecution ought to have examined independent witnesses such as conductor or other passangers, which is not done. The evidence on record clearly indicates that even the Complainant was at fault by trying to alight the bus before the stop and near the gate. The evidence on record is not sufficient to establish sole negligence/fault of the Applicant driver. Therefore, applying the case-law referred above, which directly supports the Applicant, the conviction cannot be sustained.

14. The Revision Application is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 22.01.2015 is set aside. Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2014 is allowed. Order dated 30.12.2013 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai in CC No.1485/PS/2007 thereby convicting the Applicant in the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. The Applicant is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code in connection with C.R. 63 of 2007 registered with Mahim Police Station. Bail bond and surety, if any, are discharged.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)