http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: VASANT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/12/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present:              Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati              Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik A.K. Chitale,  Sr. Adv.,  Dr. S.B. Masodkar and K.L. Taneja, Advs. with him for the appellant S.S.  Shinde,   Adv.  for  D.M.  Nargolkar,  Advs.  for  the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: NANAVATI, J.      These two  appeals  are  directed  against  the  common judgment of  the High  Court of  Bombay in Crl.A.Nos. 136/86 and 41/86.      Crl. A.No.41/86  was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction  by the trial court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal  Code. Crl. A.No. 136/86 was filed by the state as the  appellant was  acquitted for  the offence punishable under Section  302 IPC.   The  High Court  allowed the State appeal and dismissed the appeal filled by the appellant.      It was  the prosecution  case that  Shirdhar, a  Social Worker, was  complaining against  the appellant  as  he  has parking a  jeep near  his  house  and  thereby  creating  an obstruction to  the residents of that locality.  That led to enmity between him and the appellant.      A few  days before  the date  of the incident, Shridhar had threatened  the appellant  that he  would complain about his behaviour to his superior officer,  On 13.7.84. at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant was seen grappling with Shridhar on the road  about 400  feet away  from Shivni Bus stand.  This incident was witnessed by PWs 3 and 5 - Gajanan Murumkar and Shrikrishna.   The appellant  and Shridhar were separated by PWs 2,3,5,  and others,   Shridhar  at that  time  told  the appellant that it was open to him to put him in jail on that day as  he was  drunk but  he would  see him on the next day after coming  out of the jail.  The appellant thereupon went running towards the place where boring work was going on and where he  had kept his jeep bearing No. MTJ 7343,  He jumped into the  jeep, started  it and  took it in reverse upto the intersection of  the road  and  then  took  it  towards  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

deceased in high speed.  PW 4 - Sultan who was walking ahead of the  deceased got  frightened and  as  a  result  thereof articles which  he was carrying on his head fell down and he had to  run for  over.   The appellant  proceeded  ahead  by taking his  jeep on  the wrong  side of  the road  and  then knocked down Sridhar-deceased, Sridhar fell down and was run over by  the jeep.   The  appellant took his jeep ahead by a few feet  and then  brought it  back on the left side of the road.   it was  the prosecution  case that the appellant had dashed his  jeep against  Shridhar intentionally with a view to cause his death.      The trial  court held  that there  was no strong motive for the  appellant to murder the deceased.  It believed that the appellant had gone to the extreme wrong side of the road and  knocked  down  the  deceased  but  in  absence  of  any intention to  kill, the  trial court  held that the death of Shridhar was  caused as  a  result  of  rash  and  negligent driving of  his jeep  by the  appellant.   The trial  Court, therefore, convicted the appellant under Section 304A of the IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.      The High  Court after  reappreciating the evidence held that all  the circumstances  proved by  the evidence of PWs. 2,3 and  4 clearly  indicate  that  what  was  done  by  the appellant was  done intentionally.  The High Court took note of the fact that the place where the incident took place was a Tar  Road 19  feet in Width.  At the time of the incident, no other  pedestrian or  vehicle was  passing on  that road. The High  court, therefore,  took the view that there was no other reason  for the  appellant to  take his  jeep in great speed on the wrong side of the road.  In his statement under Section 313  Criminal Procedure  Code the  appellant  denied these circumstance as false.      Taking all  these factors  into consideration, the High Court held  that the  appellant had intentionally dashed his jeep against the deceased and run him over with an intention to cause his death      We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court,   We find that the High Court has dealt with each and every reason  given by  the trial  court and pointed out how those reasons are wrong.      learned counsel  for the appellant is not in a position to point out that any of the reasons given by the High Court is wrong.   So  far as PW 4 is concerned, the High Court has given goods  reason to  believe his  presence at the time of incident and  for accepting  his evidence.   He has in clear terms stated that the appellant had gone running towards the spot where  the boring work was going on,  The appellant sat in the  jeep which was standing there and took it in reserve upto the intersection which meets the National Highway.  The appellant then  came in  great speed  with the result he got frightened and  ran for  cover.  The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 also support  this version.   Once  it is  believed that the appellant behaved  in that  manner and  it is  also believed that there  was no  other reason  for the appellant to go on the wrong  side of the Road, it has to be held that whatever the appellant  had  done  was  done  intentionally  and  the incident did not happen accidentally.      In our  opinion, the  High Court  was right in allowing the State  appeal and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.  These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.      The appellant  is directed  to surrender  to custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence