Prakash Vaijinath Dahale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 May, 2026

2026:BHC-AS:21853
          Digitally
          signed by
          ANANT
ANANT     KRISHNA                                                                 901.REVN.467.2010 @1.doc
KRISHNA   NAIK
NAIK      Date:
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          2026.05.07
          18:27:19                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          +0530

                               CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.467 OF 2010

              Prakash Vaijinath Dahale                                 ... Applicant
                    versus
              The State of Maharashtra                        ... Respondent
                                                  ***
              Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Makarand Shinde for the
              Applicant.
              Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for the Respondent-State

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

                                                   DATED         : 7th MAY 2026
              P.C.:

1. The Criminal Revision Application is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC.' for short) challenging the judgment and order dated 21.09.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Appeal No. 286/2002. By said impugned order, the appeal filed by the Revision Applicant is dismissed confirming the judgment and order dated 28.08.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pune in S.C.C. No. 728 of 1999.

2. By the said order of the Magistrate, the Applicant is convicted for offence punishable under section 279 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment ('SI' for short) for one month and fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof, SI for 10 days. The Applicant is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to suffer SI for 3 months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof, SI for 15 days.

901.REVN.467.2010 @1.doc

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 19.09.1999, deceased Ganesh Gawde and Mahesh Jadhav were proceeding to Pune on their scooter, when their friends (PW-1 & PW-2) were also proceeding on their motor cycles. At the relevant time, Applicant/Accused was driving a State Transport (ST) bus from Pune to Nagar. When the bus came near the spot of the accident, it came on wrong side of the road and gave head-on dash to the scooter, in which, both the deceased fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. That the said accident was witnessed by Sudam Nawale, Ravindra Patil, Vijay Kale and Ravsaheb Zizorde. That the Applicant himself informed the incident to concerned police station.

4. C.R. No. 104 of 1999 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338, 304(A) and 427 of the IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act ('MV' for short). On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed. The Applicant/Accused pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution examined PW-1-Ravindra Sahebrao Patil who is an eyewitness, PW-2-Sudam Shivaji Nawale who is also an eyewitness, PW-3- Popat Bansi Pathare the concerned Assistant Sub-Inspector/Investigating Officer and P.W.-4-Dnynesh Vilas Gaikwad who is a panch witness.

6. Statement of the Applicant/Accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC whereunder defence is taken that the bus was on the proper side of the road; however, one truck has given dash to the scooter and thereafter the same truck has given dash to the ST bus also.

7. On appreciation of evidence, the Applicant was convicted as aforesaid and said conviction has been confirmed in the Appeal.

901.REVN.467.2010 @1.doc

8. Mr. Kadam, Learned Senior Advocate submitted as under. That the Applicant-ST Bus driver has himself informed about the accident and it indicates that the Applicant has come clean. That the scooter was found lying 200 feet away from the bus which indicates that it was not a head-on collusion and scooter was hit from the back side. That the possibility of other vehicle being involved cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that head light of Bus was found broken which is not possible by an impact of scooter. That when there is contradiction and variance in the evidence of two ocular witnesses, benefit of doubt must be given to Applicant. That apart from the friends of the deceased, no independent witnesses are examined. That the guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, conviction cannot be sustained. That the evidence on record also shows negligence of the deceased therefore, conviction cannot be sustained. That the ST Bus was found on the right side of the road i.e. facing Nagar side. He relied on following judgments in support of his case about contradictions, inconsistency and benefit of doubt :

(i) Parvat Singh And Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 4 SCC 33.

(ii) Shyam Kali Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1651.

(iii) Kannaiya Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2270.

9. On the other hand, learned APP submitted that there is sufficient evidence to indicate rash and negligent driving by the Applicant. That both the eye witnesses have stated that the bus was coming from the wrong side. That there is no contradiction amongst the statements by PW-1 and PW-2. That the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below do not require

901.REVN.467.2010 @1.doc

interference.

10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused original record and proceedings.

11. PW-1 has stated that both the deceased were going towards Pune on scooter and his motorcycle was behind the scooter. That at the relevant time PW-2-Sudam Nawale was also coming with them on another motorcycle. That the concerned bus was coming from the opposite direction and was overtaking a truck and the said bus gave dash to the scooter by coming on the wrong side of the road. That after the accident, deceased fell down and sustained serious injuries to head, hands and legs and died on the spot. PW- 1 has stated registration number of the ST bus and registration number of the scooter and the Applicant is identified in the Court. The suggestion about the truck giving dash is specifically denied. The suggestion that 'they all were going by chit-chatting to each other' is denied. The suggestion about 'false case being filed in order to get accident claim because the vehicle which had given dash to scooter had already run away' is denied.

12. PW2-Sudam Nawale had stated that one ST bus came from Pune side and it was overtaking the truck and it came on the wrong side and gave dash to the scooter of the deceased and they both fell down and died on the spot. The Applicant driver of ST bus is identified in the Court. In the cross- examination, suggestion that 'deceased were overtaking and at that time unknown vehicle gave dash and went away' is clearly denied. The suggestion that 'they all were under influence of liquor and going chit-chatting each other' is denied. This witness also denied the suggestion about 'filing false case for getting accident claim.'

901.REVN.467.2010 @1.doc

13. PW-3-Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not recorded the statement of passengers in the ST bus and further admitted that PW-1 Ravindra Patil is a reporter. The suggestion about filing false case for getting accident claim under alleged good relation with PW-1 is denied.

14. PW-4 is the panch witness. He has stated about spot of the accident and that head-light of the ST bus was broken and there was a dent on the tin of the bus. Though he has admitted that deceased were his friends, he has denied that his signature was obtained in police station on ready panchnama and he has withstood the cross-examination.

15. In the light of aforesaid evidence, when the impugned orders are perused, in my view, the Courts below were justified in believing in the statements of two eye-witnesses, who have clearly corroborated the case of the prosecution. Both the eye-witnesses have stated that the ST bus was on the wrong side of road trying to overtake the truck. Also both the eyewitnesses have identified the Applicant-driver.

16. I have gone through the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 as per Court record and proceedings. I do not find any contradiction or inconsistency in the statements of both eye-witnesses.

17. The factum of death of deceased and that their scooter being hit and thrown away by 200 feet, is beyond doubt and clearly borne out from the evidence on record. It is not disputed.

18. The learned Sessions Court has rightly held that though the witnesses are friends of deceased, that itself cannot be a ground to reject their testimony. The said witnesses have explained how and for what reason all of

901.REVN.467.2010 @1.doc

them were going together. During the cross-examination of these eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2), nothing is elicited to show that they were not present at the time of occurrence of accident. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly considered the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4.

19. The manner in which accident appears to have happened, has been considered in detail by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence on the record.

20. The argument of learned Counsel for the Applicant that the damage was caused to the bus head-light due to dash of the truck, is not borne out from any part of the evidence available before the Court and therefore the same is not sufficient to create reasonable doubt about the case of the prosecution.

21. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that there is nothing on record to show that another vehicle i.e. truck gave dash to the scooter. Learned Session Judge has also rightly held that on account of rashness of the Applicant in driving the ST bus, he has endangered the life of others and two persons have died.

22. For the above reasons, the judgments relied upon by the Applicant will not help the Applicant in principle, because in the present case, I do not find any material contradictions or inconsistencies and the witnesses are found to be trustworthy.

23. In the circumstances, there is no perversity found in the concurrent findings rendered by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge. No exceptional case or glaring illegality is found.

901.REVN.467.2010 @1.doc

24. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons indicated above, there is no reason to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. Criminal Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. The Applicant is given four weeks time to surrender.

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)