RAJKUMAR DHUNICHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2013-12-89
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: AURANGABAD)
Decided on December 17,2013

Rajkumar Dhunichand Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

NADIR KHAN VS. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO (IV)]
VAIKUNTAM CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. THADI NARAYANA:THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO (1)]
BUDHSEN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO BUDHSEN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF U.P.] AND (1)]
EKNATH SHANKARRAO MUKKAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO (III)]
VIMAL SINGH VS. KHUMAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHAMNSAHEB M MULTTANI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
K PANDURANGAN VS. S S R VELUSAMY [REFERRED TO (V)]
PRITHIPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO (II)]
HAR PAL SINGH AND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ENUMULA SUBBARAO VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SANKU SREEDHARAN KOTTUKALLIL VEETTIL KONATHADI KARA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO (V. 57 C 20) (1)]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BODYA RAMJI PATIL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

T. V. Nalawade, J. - (1.)The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 135/2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under sections 304, 307 and 427 of Indian Penal Code and also for the offence punishable under section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. The appellant is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 307 and 304-A of I.P.C. and also for offence punishable under section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. This Court (Presided over by other Hon'ble Judge of this Court) has issued notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the appellant should not be convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 304 of I.P.C. instead of giving him conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. The appellant has filed reply to it. On the other hand, the main contention of the appellant is that the appellant/accused could not have been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. as there was no charge for this offence. Both the sides were heard on merits and also on the point of powers of this Court including the revisional jurisdiction.
(2.)In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :-
The crime is registered on the basis of report given by one Shri. Suresh Garje, Police Naik, who was attached to Osmanabad Rural Police Station and who was doing his duty at Yedshi Out Post. The incident took place on 18.8.2011. The complainant and his deceased colleague were expected to do the petrolling duty at the Out Post. At about 18.45 hours a couple came on motorcycle to the Police Chowki Yedshi and informed that at Dhoki, which is situated at the distance of 20 k.m. from the Out Post, a truck bearing No. CG-04/JB-4946 had dashed to pedestrian and the pedestrian had died on the spot. They informed that the truck driver had not stopped the truck there and the truck was coming towards Yedshi.

(3.)The complainant and his deceased colleague Narendra Kale, who was also Police Naik came out of the police Chowki and they started waiting for truck on the road situated in front of the Chowki. The complainant was in uniform, but Narendra Kale was not in uniform. The complainant stopped right in front of Chowki, but Narendra Kale stopped at some distance from Chowki with his motorcycle. Narendra Kale was expected to take action in case the truck was not stopped after giving signal by the complainant.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.