- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 932 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2019 SUNIL MOHAN SANAP VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Mr.Uddhav Daund h/f Mr.S.B.Rajebhosale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/State. ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent/State. 2. The Applicant is challenging the order dated 07.12.2019 passed in Cri.Appeal No.30/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, wherein the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.Aashti, Dist.Beed in SCC No.143/2012 thereby convicting the Applicant u/s 279 and 304-A of the IPC, came to be maintained. It is case of the prosecution that on 05.02.2012 at about 9.25 PM, the deceased, who was riding a motorcycle was hit by one pick up vehicle khs/Sept.2026/374 2026:BHC-AUG:44218 - 2 - bearing vehicle No.MH-16-AE-2879, which was alleged to be driven by the present Applicant. In the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. In pursuance to the said incident, FIR No.19/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A and 427 of the IPC came to be registered against the Applicant. 3. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed and the Applicant came to be prosecuted as per the charge framed against him. The Prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses. After recording the oral evidence of all the witnesses, the learned J.M.F.C. was pleased to convict the Applicant for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304-A of the IPC vide its order dated 24.04.2018. The learned Magistrate, vide the aforesaid conviction order, directed the Applicant/accused to suffer SI for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- I.d. to suffer SI of 5 days u/s 279 of the IPC and also directed to suffer SI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer SI of 10 days u/s 304 A of the IPC. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction order, the Applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.30/2018 before the learned Sessions Judge, Beed. After hearing the learned Advocates for the khs/Sept.2026/374 - 3 - parties, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal vide impugned judgment dated 07.12.2019 thereby maintaining the conviction order passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant. According to him, both the learned Sub-ordinate Courts below have failed to consider the evidence in proper perespective. The evidence recorded by the prosecution is at all not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that it is the Applicant, who is responsible for the death of the deceased and more particularly that he was driving the vehicle in such a manner that it has caused death of the deceased. He further submitted that the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P.W.No.1 Ashok Hambarde, who alleged to have witnessed the incident. He submits that that the said witness has specifically stated that there are certain speed breakers just near the spot and as such, it is not possible to drive the vehicle in high speed. He further submits that the said witness has merely stated that the vehicle was driven in quite high speed. However, relying on the same it cannot be presumed that the Applicant/Accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Further he submits that the evidence of P.W.No.2 Venkat Garje is also being sought to be relied by khs/Sept.2026/374 - 4 - the prosecution, who was panch witness of the spot. He further submitted that the evidence of this panch witness is not enough to arrive at a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. He also further submitted that the spot panchanama alleged to have been recorded prior to registration of crime. He, therefore, submits that there are many lacunas in the investigation and the evidence of the witnesses therefore is not at all sufficient to prove the crime against the Applicant beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, submits that the learned Sub Ordinate Courts have failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perespective and committed grave error in law and hence judgment passed by them is not sustainable in the eyes of Law. He further submits that both the judgments passed by the learned Sub ordinate Courts to be quashed and set aside and the applicant/accused be acquitted in the instant crime. 6. Per contra, the learned APP supported the judgments passed by the Trial Court. According to her, the evidence recorded by the prosecution is sufficient enough to impose conviction upon the Applicant. She submits that there is a direct evidence available in the instant case and relying on the same, the prosecution has fully khs/Sept.2026/374 - 5 - established its case before the Trial Court. The judgments passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are correct and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 7. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on going through the evidence brought before this Court, it is found that the Applicant came to be convicted u/s 279, 304-A of the IPC. To convict the person u/s 279 of the IPC, it is incumbent upon the Trial Court to record a finding that the Applicant was driving the vehicle involved in crime in rash and negligent manner and such conduct resulted into the death of the deceased. 8. After perusing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it has not been brought on record to establish the said conduct of the Applicant. P.W.No.1 Ashok Hambarde, in his deposition has stated that the Applicant was driving his vehicle in high speed. However, by that itself, it cannot be presumed, in absence of sufficient cogent evidence, that the Applicant was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. On going through all the evidence on record and after scrutinizing the judgments passed by the learned Sub Ordinate Courts, it would not be khs/Sept.2026/374 - 6 - appropriate to pass the order of conviction against the Applicant. The learned Trial Courts, having failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective, has committed grave error in the eyes of Law. Hence, the conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following order :- [a] Criminal Revision Application stands allowed. [b] The judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Ashti, Dist.Beed in SCC No.143/2012 and judgment dated 07.12.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.30/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed are quashed and set aside and the Applicant is acquitted from all of the offences for which he is convicted by the learned Sub Ordinate Courts. [c] His bail bond stands cancelled and the surety, if any, stands discharged. [d] The fine amount, if any deposited, be refunded to the Applicant. [e] The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) khs/Sept.2026/374