AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Dhore on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. N. Rao on behalf of the State-respondent. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
The applicant has been convicted by learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. His appeal has been dismissed.
I have gone through the judgments of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. It is abundantly clear from the evidence of the witnesses that the applicant was not identified to be a driver of the vehicle. The learned appellate Court has stated in its judgment at para-11, as under -
Not identifying the accused is not fatal in this case for the simple reason that P.W. 3 Krishna Dangari has deposed that he knows the accused. He has identified him and has stated that he was driver on his vehicle on the day of accident.
This evidence only establishes that the applicant was employed as a driver with P.W.3 Krishna Dangari. This does not establish that the applicant was driving that vehicle at the time of the incident. As far as evidence with regard to the identification of driver is concerned, there is no material on record. On the contrary, all the witnesses have stated that Dangari himself was driving the vehicle. In view of this, I find that the judgments of both the Courts below cannot be sustained. The criminal revision needs to be allowed.
The revision application is allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Regular Criminal Case No. 96 of 2008 (Old Case No. 3138 of 1995) and the judgment, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2010 are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine, if any, paid by the applicant shall be refunded. Revision application stands disposed of.