323.17revn (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 18 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 323 OF 2017 HARIBHAU S/O. DEVICHAND GARUTE VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2. NANDU SONAJI MAGARE ….. Mr Abhishek Nagode, Advocate h/f Mr D. G. Nagode, Advocate for Applicant Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.1/State Ms Smita R. Kasture, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C. : 1. Heard Mr Nagode, learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent No.1/State and Ms Kasture, learned Advocate for respondent No.2. 2. The applicant is challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 27/10/2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Court No.4, Paithan. Vide the said judgment and order, the learned JMFC acquitted respondent No.2/accused of offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. 2026:BHC-AUG:42954 323.17revn (2) 3 Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC is illegal and is at not sustainable. He further submits that there are in all sixteen witnesses, however, the prosecution has examined only three witnesses and no efforts were made to examine eye witnesses, resulting into acquittal of respondent No.2. He then submits that the learned JMFC ought to have considered the aspect that respondent No.2 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in drunken condition and given dash to the motorcycle of the son of applicant, which resulted into his death. He further submits that, despite availability of sufficient material on record, the learned Trial Court erroneously acquitted respondent No.2. He, therefore, submits that instant revision application may be allowed thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned JMFC. 4. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms Kasture for respondent No.2/accused vehemently opposes the present revision application. She states that learned JMFC, after considering the evidence brought before him by the prosecution, and after hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties before him, has rightly acquitted respondent No.2/accused. According to her, the prosecution has failed to prove that, on 29/01/2007 at about 22:40 hours on Paithan- Aurangabad road, 323.17revn (3) respondent No.2 was driving a Jeep bearing No.MH-12-JA-892 on a public way in a rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person. She then submits that the prosecution has also failed to prove that respondent No.2 drove the said Jeep in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing death of the applicant’s son, namely, Parmeshwar. She further submits that, although the prosecution examined six witnesses, none of them stated that respondent No.2/accused was responsible for the fatal accident, resulting in the death of son of the applicant. She, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC is correct and proper, and requires no interference of this Court. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of present revision application. 5. Learned APP for the respondent No.1/State supports the case of the applicant and prays for allowing the present revision application. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties and after perusing of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC, it is found that respondent/accused was being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 337, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of trial, the 323.17revn (4) prosecution had examined six witnesses. Learned Trial Court considered the evidence of PW-4 to PW-6 and on the basis of their testimonies, observed that the evidence brought by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of respondent No.2/accused for commission of alleged offences. The prosecution has also failed to suggest that the respondent No.2 caused the death of son of applicant. After going through the order, I found that no case is made out for entertaining the instant revision application. Moreover, the impugned judgment and order is passed on 27/10/2017. The incident is of the year 2007. Now, it would not be appropriate to upset the finding of acquittal given by the learned Trial Court, who has considered the evidence in a proper perspective. 7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out by the applicant and this matter deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is dismissed. 8. Fees of learned Advocate appointed to represent respondent No.2 is to be paid through the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] sjk