Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

Exh.190

INTHECOURTOFSESSIONSFORGR.BOMBAYATBOMBAYSESSIONSCASENO.240OF2013

(C.C.No.490/PS/2005)

TheStateofMaharashtra )(BandraP.Stn.C.R.No.326/2002 ) ...Complainant

V/s.

SalmanSalimKhan )Age:49yrs.,Occ.CineArtist )Add.GalaxiApartment,B.J.Road, )Bandstand,Bandra(W.),Mumbai. ) ...Accused

CORAM:HisHonourTheAdditionalSessionsJudgeShriD.W.Deshpande(C.R.No.52)

DATE: 6thMay,2015.

Mr.Gharat,SpecialP.P.forState.Mr. Shivade, Counsel for accused, along with Advocate Mr. AnandDesai,AdvocateMr.NiravShah,AdvocateMs.ChandrimaMitraandAdvocateMr.ManharSainii/b.M/s.DSKLegal.

JUDGMENT

1. AccusedSalmanSalimKhan,famousCineActor,facedtrial

on the allegation that in the intervening night of 27.9.2002 and

28.09.2002 at about 02.45 a.m. drove Toyota Land Cruiser bearing

No.MH01DA32inarashandnegligentmanner,undertheinfluence

ofalcoholwithknowledgethatpeopleweresleepingonthefootpathin

frontofAmericanExpressLaundry,causeddeathofonepersonandalso

injuredfourothersbyrunningcaroverthemandrammedtheshutterof

AmericanExpressLaundrypunishableunderSections304PartII,337,

...2/

SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..2.. Judgment

338oftheIndianPenalCodeandunderSections134(A)(B)r/w.187,

181and185oftheMotorVehiclesAct,1988.

2. Theprosecutioncaseagainsttheaccusedisasunder:

3. ComplainantRavindraHimmatraoPatilwasdeputedasa

BodyGuardofaccused.Hewashavingthedutyhoursfrom08.00p.m.

to08.00a.m.Heusedtoremainalongwiththeaccusedasapartofhis

duty.On27.09.2002atabout08.00p.m.RavindraPatiljoinedhisduty

asasecuritypersonforaccused.

4. On27.09.2002atabout09.30p.m.,theaccusedandhis

friendKamalKhancameoutsideofthehouseastheywantedtovisit

RainHotel,Juhu.TheaccusedwashavingvehicleLandCruiserbearing

no.MH01DA32(forthesakeofbrevity,hereinafterreferredtoasthe

saidcar).ThecomplainantRavindraPatil,KamalKhansatinthecar.

Theaccuseddrovethesaidcar. ThecarreachednearRainBarand

Restaurant. The complainant was asked to wait outside and the

accusedandKamalKhanwentinsidethehotel.

5. SohelKhanisbrotheroftheaccusedSalmanKhan.Sohel

Khanwasalsohavingabodyguard(PW6BaluLaxman)at relevant

timewhometRavindraPatil outsideRainBar. PW6BaluLaxman

informedRavindraPatilthatSohelKhanhadalsocomethere.

6. At about 01.30a.m. the accusedandKamal Khancame

outsidetheRainBar.FromRainBar,theaccusedthenstartedforgoing

...3/


to J.W. Mariot Hotel. The accused was driving the vehicle.

ComplainantRavindraPatilsatontheseatneardriver'sseat. Kamal

Khansatontherearseat. ThentheywenttoJ.W.MariotHotel. The

accused and Kamal Khan went inside the hotel and complainant

RavindraPatilwaswaitingoutside.

7. Atabout02.15a.m.on28.09.2002theaccusedandKamal

Khancameoutfromthehotel.Theaccusedsatonthedriver'sseatand

complainantRavindraPatilsatneardriver'sseat.Thesaidcarcameon

St.AndrewsRoad.Theaccusedwasdrunkandwasdrivingthesaidcar

atthespeedof90to100kilometersperhour.St.AndrewsRoadand

Hill Road joined at the junction. Prior to reaching the car at the

junctionofSt.AndrewsRoadandHillRoad,thecomplainantRavindra

Patilinformedtheaccusedtolowerthespeedofthecarinviewofthe

rightturnahead.Theaccuseddidnotpayanyattention.Theaccused

could not control his car while taking right turn and went on the

footpath.Thepeopleweresleepingonthefootpath.Thesaidcarran

overthepersonssleepingonthefootpathandclimbedthethreestairs

andrammedtheshutterofAmericanLaundry. Therebythesaidcar

broketheshutterandwentinsideabout3andfeet.

8. Thepeopleonwhosepersonthesaidcarranshoutedand

therebyotherpersonsgathered. Thepeoplegatheredsurroundedthe

car.Thepeoplebecamefuriousbecauseoftheincident.Somehowthe

complainant,SalmanKhanandKamalKhancameoutofthesaidcar.

ThecomplainantRavindraPatilshowedhisidentitycardandinformed

themthatheisapolicepersonnel,therebythepeoplewerepacified.

...4/


9. TheaccusedSalmanKhanandKamalKhanranawayfrom

thespot.ComplainantRavindraPatilsawonepersonseriouslyinjured

beneaththesaidcarhavingmultipleinjuriesandalsotherewerefour

injuredpersonsbelowthecar.ControlRoomwasinformed.Within5

minutes,Bandrapolicearrived.Thepolicerescuedtheinjuredpersons

anddeadbodyof Nurullawasremovedfrombeneaththecar. The

injuredweresenttoBhabhaHospital.

10. PW26RajendraKadamreceivedatelephonecallfroman

unknownpersonatabout02.45a.m.on28.09.2002abouttheincident.

Heimmediatelycameonthespotwithpolice.HesawoneLandCruiser

vehicle rammedintotheshutterof AmericanExpress Laundry. The

PoliceInspectorPardhiandstaffalsoarrivedonthespot. Ravindra

Patilwasalsopresentonthespot.Acranewascalledtoliftthevehicle

inordertoremovethepersonlyingbeneaththecar.

11. PW26RajendraKadamdrawnspotpanchanama(Exh.28)

in presence of PW1 Sambha Gauda. The spot was shown by the

complainantRavindraPatil.PW26Kadamseizedthearticleslyingon

thespoti.e.fiberglass,bloodstainedsoil,nameplate,piecesofbroken

glass,sampleofcolourscratchofshutterofAmericanExpressLaundry.

PW26Kadamalsoopenedthedoorsofthevehicleandtookoutthe

papersofthevehicleaswellasthekey.Thearticlescametobeseized

and sealed and also label having signatures of panchas and PW26

Kadamwasalsoaffixed.

...5/


12. PW26alsomadeinquirywiththecomplainantRavindra

Patilwhoiseyewitnesstotheincident.Herecordedthecomplaintof

complainantRavindraPatil(Exh.P1).

13. In the incident, Nurulla was expired and PW2 Muslim

Shaikh,PW3MannuKhan,PW4Mohd.KalimIqbalPathan,PW11

Mohd. Abdulla Shaikh were injured in the incident. Abdulla and

MuslimShaikhsustainedgrievousinjuries. MannuandMohd.Kalim

Pathansustainedsimpleinjuries. ThedeadbodyofNurullawassent

forpostmortem.

14. Thepostmortemreport(Exh.20)wasadmittedbydefence

aswellasinjurycertificatesofthewitnessesAbdullaRaufShaikh,Kalim

Mohd.AbdulPathanandMuslimNiyamatShaikharealsoadmittedby

thedefence(Exh.21,Exh.22,Exh.23respectively). Intheevidenceof

Investigating Officer PW27 Shengal, exhibits were given to injury

certificates of Kalim Mohd. Pathan (Exh.151), Munnabhai Khan

(Exh.152),AbdulRaufShaikh(Exh.155)andMuslimShaikh(Exh.156)

beingadmittedbydefence.

15. PW26KadamrecordedstatementsofAbdulandMuslim.

Theoffencesu/s.304A,279,338oftheIPCandu/s.134oftheMotor

VehiclesActwereregistered.PW26Kadamalsodrawnmap(Exh.143)

ofthespotofincidentinpresenceofcomplainantRavindraPatil.

16. PW26 Kadam also visited Galaxi Apartment where the

accusedwasresiding,buthewasnotfound.Thespotofincidentwasat

...6/


the distance of 200 meters from the house of the accused. The

investigationwasthenentrustedtoPoliceInspectorPardhi.

17. On 29.09.2002 PW19 Rajendra Keskar, RTO Inspector,

inspectedthevehicleandsubmittedareport(Exh.84).Nomechanical

defectwasnoticedinthevehicle.

18. PW27 Kisan Shengal was working as a Senior Police

InspectorinBandraPoliceStation. PW26alsoinformedhiminthe

early hours of 28.09.2002 about the incident. Immediately PW27

KisanShengalcametothepolicestationandwhilecomingtothepolice

station,hevisitedthespotof incident. P.I. Pardhialreadydeployed

bandobastonthespot.

19. PW27ShengalproceededtoGalaxyApartmenttosearch

the accused, but he didnot find the accused in the house. PW27

receivedasecretinformationaboutvisitoftheaccusedatthehouseof

hisAdvocateinAlmedaPark.Accordingly,theaccusedwastracedout

inthehouseofAdvocateMr.JamirKhan. Theaccusedwastakenin

possessionandbroughtinthepolicestationwherearrestpanchanama

wasdrawnatabout11.00a.m.TheaccusedwasthensenttoBhabha

hospitalformedicalexaminationandalsoforbloodsamplealongwith

PSISuryavanshiandpolicestaff.SuryavanshiinformedPW27thatin

BhabhaHospitalthereisnofacilityforcollectingthebloodsample.The

accusedwasthensenttoJ.J.Hospitalatabout01.30p.m.alongwith

Suryavanshi,PSISalunkheandpolicestaff. BloodsampleofSalman

KhanforalcoholwastakenbyPW20Dr.ShashikantPawar.Thesealed

...7/


envelopcontainingthebloodsampleofSalmanKhanwasthenbrought

tothepolicestation. AstherewasSaturdayandSunday,PW27kept

thebloodsampleinfridge.Theaccusedwasalsoreleasedonbail.PW

27Shengalalsodemandedlicencefromtheaccused. Nolicencewas

produced. Offence u/s.3 r/w.181 of the Motor Vehicles Act also

registeredagainsttheaccused. PoliceInspectorPardhialsorecorded

the statements of witnesses. PW27 Shengal also investigated the

addressoftheregisteredownerfromthexeroxcopiesofthedocuments

foundinthecar. ThevehiclewasregisteredinthenameofMohd.

AbdulRehman,residentof55ShivkrupaBuilding,L.J.Road,Mahim,

Mumbai, but the address was found false. Thestatements of Amin

Kasim Shaikh, Ram Suresh Ram Lakhan Sonkar, Sachin Gangaram

Kadamandotherswerealsorecorded. PW27Shengalalsorecorded

supplementarystatementofcomplainantRavindraPatilon01.10.2002.

HesentlettertoC.A.on30.09.2002.TheteamofForensicLaboratory

inspectedthevehicleandtooksomescrapingsfromthevehicleaswell

ascollectedthesamplesfromthespotandalsoincriminatingmaterial.

PW27ShengalsentthesamplestotheC.A. Healsosenttheblood

sampleoftheaccusedtoC.A.,Kalina,on30.09.2002throughConstable

PW21Borade.

20. PW27 Investigating Officer Shengal also recorded

statement of RamAdhar Pandey on the spot. He also visited J.W.

Mariot Hotel and Rain Bar Restaurant, Juhu. He also recorded

statements of Anurudha Subroto Nandi, Wilfred George Kutti and

others. PW27alsorecordedstatementsofPW9RizwanAliRakhangi

fromRain Bar andPW5MalayBag, waiter fromRainBar. PW27

...8/


Shengal also collected the hotel bills (Exh.50A to Exh.50D) about

consumptionofalcoholandsnacks.

21. PW27 Shengal also collected parking tag from PW12

KalpeshVermawhowasworkingasaParkingAssistantinJ.W.Marriot

Hotel.Thesaidparkingtagisnotonrecord.ThestatementofKalpesh

Vermawasalsorecorded. BandraPoliceStationalsoreceived C.A.

reporton01.10.2002.C.A.reportofthebloodsampleforalcoholtestis

atExh.81.ThesaidreportispreparedbyPW18DattatrayBhalshankar

(AssistantChemicalAnalyzer). PW27alsorecordedthestatementsof

injuredpersonsKalimMohd.PathanandMunnaKhan.On02.10.2002

PW27alsosentthearticlescollectedbyearlierInvestigatingOfficerfor

forwardingtoC.A.On03.10.2002PW27Shengalalsosentaletterto

R.T.O.,Tardeo,Andheri,andsoughtinformationaboutlicenceofthe

accused.RTOinformedthepolicestationthatnolicencewasissuedto

SalmanKhan. ThestatementsofMannuKhan,KalimMohd.Pathan,

RamAsarePandeywerealsorecordedu/s.164oftheCr.P.C.bytheld.

MetropolitanMagistrate,12thCourt,Bandra. ThestatementofKamal

Khanwasalsorecordedon04.10.2002.

22. On07.10.2002PW27ShengaladdedSection304IIofthe

IPCandaccordingly, informationwas submitted to the Metropolitan

MagistrateCourt. ThevehicleLandCruiserbearingNo.MH01DA32

wasreturnedtoaccusedSalmanKhanonthebondofRs.15Lacsasper

theCourtorder.

...9/


23. Theaccusedvoluntarilysurrenderedinthepolicestation

on07.10.2002andarrestpanchanama(Exh.154)wasdrawn. PW27

Shengal also recorded the statements of other witnesses. He also

collectedtheMedicalCertificatesoftheinjured.

24. Aftercompletionofinvestigation,chargesheetcametobe

filedon21.10.2002inthe12thMetropolitanMagistrateCourt,Bandra,

Mumbai. After submitting the chargesheet, PW27 Shengal also

receivedC.A.reportswhichareatExh.157AtoExh.157E.

25. The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra,

Mumbai,on31.01.2003,committedthecasetotheCourtofSessionsas

theoffencepunishableunderSection304IIoftheI.P.C.isexclusively

triablebytheCourtofSessions.

26. It is pertinent to note that the accused filed the

Miscellaneous Application bearing No.463/03 in the Sessions Court

contending that Sec.304II of the IPC is not attracted, but the said

applicationwasrejectedbytheSessionsCourt.

27. It appears that the then InCharge Sessions Judge Shri

Dholakiaframedthechargeagainsttheaccusedu/s.304(II),308,279,

338,337,427oftheI.P.C.andu/s.134(A)(B)r/w.Sec.187, 3r/w.

Sec.181,185oftheMotorVehiclesActandu/s.66(i)(b)oftheBombay

Prohibition Act. The accused pleadednot guilty to the charge and

claimedforthetrial.

...10/


28. TheaccusedalsopreferredCriminalWritPetitionbearing

No.2467/2003u/s.482of the Cr. P.C. in the Hon'ble BombayHigh

Court.TheHon'bleBombayHighCourtwaspleasedtoallowthesaid

application and the order of the Sessions Court framing the charge

under Section 304II of the IPCwas quashedwhile maintaining the

order of theother charges. Theorder of theHon'ble BombayHigh

CourtwaschallengedbeforetheHon'bleApexCourtbytheStateof

Maharashtra by filing Criminal Appeal bearing No.1508/2003. The

Hon'bleApexCourtsetasidetheorderoftheHon'bleHighCourtas

wellasthetrialcourtandheldasunder:

Therefore, we think it appropriate that the

findings inregardtothesufficiencyorotherwiseof

the material to frame a charge punishable under

Section 304, Part II, IPC of both the courts below

shouldbesetasideanditshouldbelefttobedecided

bythecourttryingtheoffencetoalterormodifyany

suchchargeatanappropriatestagebasedonmaterial

producedbywayofevidence.

29. FurthertheHon'bleApexCourtobservedintheorderthat

pursuant to the Judgment of the High Court, the Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Bandra, has already framed fresh charges under

Section304(A)IPCandotherprovisionsmentionedhereinaboveand

trial has commenced. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed as

under:

Atanyappropriatestage,iftheld.Magistratecomes

to the conclusionthat there is sufficient material to

...11/


chargetherespondentforamoreseriousoffencethan

the one punishable under Section 304A, he shall

proceed to do so without in any manner being

hinderedorinfluencedbytheobservationsorfindings

oftheHighCourtorSessionsCourt,shall bepurely

basedonthematerialbroughtinevidenceofthetrial.

30. Itispertinenttonotethattheprosecutionhasexaminedin

all17witnessesintheCourtofMetropolitanMagistrate,Bandra. The

APPinthetrialCourtfiledanapplicationforframingadditionalcharge

underSection304(II)ofIPCandcontendedthatthecasebecommitted

totheCourtofSessions.Theaccusedalsosubmittedthereply(Exh.28)

to the said application. The ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan

MagistrateallowedtheapplicationoftheAPPandcommittedthecase

to the Court of Sessions on 31.01.2013 u/s.209 of the Cr. P.C. as

offence u/s.304II of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions.

31. ItispertinenttonotethattheaccusedalsomovedRevision

ApplicationNo.220/2013intheSessionsCourtagainsttheorderofthe

ld. Additional Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, buton24.06.2013, the

saidrevisionapplicationwasrejected.

32. Chargeisframedbymyld.Predecessor(H.H.J.ShriU.B.

Hejib) against the accused u/s.304II, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. and

u/s.3(1)r/w.181,134r/w.187,187andu/s.185oftheMotorVehicles

Act.

...12/


33. Thecontentsofthechargewerereadovertotheaccusedto

whichtheaccuseddidnotpleadguiltyandclaimedforthetrial.

34. Itispertinenttonotethatthepointarosebeforemeasto

whethertheevidenceledbeforethetrialCourtbeforecommittalisto

bereadorwhetherfreshtrial isrequiredtobeorderedagain. It is

pertinenttonotethatafterframingthecharge,thematterwasfixedfor

submittingthelistofwitnessesandalsofilinglistofdocumentsu/s.294

oftheCr.P.C.Theld.APPMr.Kenjalkarsubmittedthattheevidence

ledinthetrialcourtbeforecommittalcanbeacceptedotherwisethe

trialwouldbedelayed.However,theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadeopposed

thecontentionoftheld.APPandsubmittedthatthechargeu/s.304II

of the IPC framed against the accused is a serious offence and

punishmentisprovidedtotheextentof10yearsorwithfineorboth.

35. The ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case

u/s.209 of the Cr. P.C. The ld. Advocate Mr. Shivade also quoted

SectionSection323oftheCr.P.C.beforethisCourt. Accordingtold.

Advocate Mr. Shivade, when the case is committed to the Court of

Sessions, then Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment. It is

pertinenttonotethatChapterXVIIIisdealingwiththecasebeforethe

CourtofSessions.ThesaidChapterdealswiththeprovisionsofSection

225to235oftheCr.P.C.

36. Afterhearingtheld.APPandtheld.defenceCounsel,this

CourtafterconsideringtheprovisionsofSection209,323oftheCr.

...13/


P.C.andalsotheprovisionsincorporatedunderChapterXVIIIandalso

provisions of Section 326of the Cr. P.C., passed the detailed order

belowExh.1 on 05.12.2013 that afresh trial be ordered against the

accused. Neitherstatenoraccusedchallengedtheorderofthiscourt

dated5.12.2013.

37. Theprosecutionhasexamined27witnessesbeforemeand

theyareasunder:

PW1SambhaKanappaGauda(Exh.27)

Panchwitnessonspotpanchanama(Exh.28)

PW2MuslimNiyamatShaikh(Exh.32)

Injured.

PW3MannuKhans/o.MeliKhan(Exh.33)

Injuredwitness.

PW4Mohd.KalimIqbalPathan(Exh.36)

Injuredwitness.

PW5MalaySemerendraBag(Exh.39)

At the relevant time, he was working as aWaiter in Rain Bar and Restaurant and onpointofvisitoftheaccusedtoRainBarandRestaurant.

PW6BaluLaxmanMuthe(Exh.40)

SecurityGuardforCineActorSohailKhan

PW7FransisDaimanFernandes(Exh.43)

Present on the spot after hearing thecommotion.Independentwitness.

PW8RamasareRamdevPande(Exh.47)

Visitedthespotofincidentafterhearingthenoiseandsawaccusedgettingdownfromtherightfrontsideofthecar,hisstatementwasrecordedu/s.164oftheCr.P.C.Independentwitness.

...14/


PW9RizwanAliRakhangi(Exh.49)

Attherelevanttime,workedasaManagerinRain Bar &Restaurant, in his evidence, thebills(Exh.50AtoExh.50D)proved.

PW10SachinGangaramKadam(Exh.52)Hostile

Hehadseenonebigcarwentonthebakeryand also over the persons sleeping on theplatformofAmericanCleaners.

PW11Mohd.AbdullaShaikh(Exh.53)

Injured.

PW12KalpeshSarjuVerma(Exh.69)

Was working at the relevant time inJ.W.MarriotHotelasaParkingAssistantandonthepointofvisitoftheaccusedtoJ.W.Mariot.

PW13AminKasamShaikh(Exh.70)

Afterhearingthenoise,hewentonthespotand saw vehicle white in colour went inAmerican Bakery and shutter of AmericanLaundrywasbroken.MuslimandAbdulfoundbeneaththecar.

PW14SalimMajidPatel(Exh.72)

Custom Clearing Agent, cleared the vehicleLandCruiserfromthecustoms.

[email protected](Exh.73)

KnownaccusedanddutyofthecarwaspaidbychequebyfatherofSalmanKhan.

PW16GurucharanAbnashiramMalhotra(Exh.77)

InsuranceAgent

PW17MarkMarshalD'Souza(Exh.78)

Worked as a Counter clerk in AmericanLaundrysince1988,hadseenSalmanKhan

...15/


whousedtopassfromhislaundryandonHillRoad.

PW18DattatrayKhobrajiraoBhalshankar(Exh.79)

Assistant Chemical Analyser, did analysis ofbloodsampleofaccusedforalcoholtestandpreparedtheC.A.report(Exh.81)andfound0.062mg.alcoholinthebloodofaccused.

PW19RajendraSadashivKeskar(Exh.83)

RTOInspector,inspectedthevehicleinvolvedin the incident and submitted a report(Exh.84).

PW20Dr.ShashikantJanardanPawar(Exh.96)

Medical Officer in J.J. Hospital in the year2002,extractedbloodfromSalmanKhanforalcoholtest.

PW21SharadBapuBorade(Exh.115)

He had taken the blood sample to KalinaLaboratory,Carrier

PW22VijayManikraoSalunkhe(Exh.118)

BroughtaccusedalongwithpolicestafftoJ.J.Hospitalforexaminationandfortakingbloodsample.

PW23RaghuveerSinghNagsinghBilawar(Exh.119)

Assistant Inspector in RTOexaminedby theprosecution to show that accused was notpossessinglicenceonthedayofincident.

PW24SangitaAnnasahebMahadik(Exh.126)

Woman Police Naik, examined by theprosecution to show that Dr. Sanap whoconductedthepostmortemonthedeadbodyofthedeceasedisresidinginU.S.A.

PW25KailashHimmatraoBehere(Exh.139)

Brother of complainant Ravindra Patil(deceasedexaminedby prosecution to showthat Ravindra Patil was expired on03.10.2007.

...16/


ComplainantRavindraPatil(Exh.141)examinedintheCourtofAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrateCourt.

Hisevidenceistakenonrecordu/s33ofTheIndianEvidenceAct.

PW26RajendraGenbapuKadam(Exh.142)

Recorded FIR of Ravindra Patil and alsodrawn spot panchanama and seized thearticles fromthespotandalsorecordedthestatements of Abdul and Muslim, preparedmapofthespotofincident.

PW27KisanNarayanShengal(Exh.147)

InvestigatingOfficer,recordedsupplementarystatement of complainant Ravindra Patil,arrested the accused under panchanama(Exh.148),senttheaccusedtoJ.J.Hospitalfortakingbloodsample,sentthebloodsampletoC.A.,madeinvestigationregardingtheaddressof the registered owner of the vehicle,recordedstatementsofstaffmembersofRainBar,visitedJ.W.MarriotHotelandRainBarRestaurant, collected hotel bills, parking tagfromKalpeshSarjuVerma,recordedstatementofKalpeshVerma,sentlettertoRTOseekinginformation regarding the licence of theaccused,statementsofwitnessesMannuKhan,KalimMohd.Pathan,RamAsarePandeywererecorded by M.M., 12th Court, Bandra.Recorded statement of Kamal Khan on04.10.2002. On 07.10.2002 added Section304II of the IPC in thecrime, returnedthevehicle as per court order, the accusedwassurrendered on 07.10.2002 after addingSection 304II of IPC, arrest panchanama(Exh.151)wasdrawn,recordedstatementsofwitnesses,collectedtheMedicalCertificatesofinjuredandfiledchargesheeton21.10.2002before 12th Metropolitan Magistrate Court,Bandra.SubmittedC.A.reports.

...17/


38. Before recording evidence of PW26 Rajendra Genbapu

KadamandPW27KisanNarayanShengal(InvestigatingOfficers),ld.

SPPMr.Gharatmovedanapplication(Exh.131)u/s.33oftheIndian

EvidenceActfortakingtheevidenceofRavindraHimmatraoPatiland

Dr.Sanaponrecordandalsoadmittingthesameu/s.33oftheIndian

EvidenceAct. TheevidenceofRavindraPatilwasrecordedbeforethe

MetropolitanMagistrateCourt,Bandra,inC.C.No.490/PS/2005prior

tocommittal.ComplainantPatilwasexpiredon3.10.2007.According

told.SPP,theaccusedhadcrossexaminedthecomplainantRavindra

PatilthoroughlyandtheingredientsofSection33arefullyattracted.

Theld.defenceCounselobjectedthesaidapplicationbyfilingthereply

(Exh.136).Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadealsoreliedonthejudgmentof

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of

Gujarat and Another [(2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1]. Ld.

CounselMr.ShivadefairlysubmittedthattheevidenceofMr.Ravindra

Himmatrao Patil can be taken on record and be exhibited and the

admissibilityof theevidenceofRavindraPatil canbedecidedatthe

timeoffinalargument. Ld.SPPMr.Gharatalsofairlyconsideredthe

saidissue. Hence,inviewoftheratiolaiddowninthecaseof Bipin

ShantilalPanchal,theevidenceofcomplainantRavindraPatilrecorded

inC.C.No.490/PS/2005intheCourtofAdditionalChiefMetropolitan

Magistrate was taken on record and exhibited (Exh. 141). The

admissibilityoftheevidenceofRavindraPatilwouldbedecidedafter

finalhearinginthejudgmentinviewoftheratiolaiddownin Bipin

Shantilal Panchal and State of Gujarat and Another. The

prosecutionaswellasdefencewerepermittedtorefertheevidenceof

Ravindra Patil during the examination of PW26 Rajendra Genbapu

...18/


KadamandalsotheInvestigatingOfficerPW27KisanNarayanShengal

forprovingomissionsandcontradictions,ifany.

39. Itispertinenttonotethatinthesay(Exh.136)submitted

bythedefencetotheapplication(Exh.131)u/s.33oftheEvidenceAct,

itiscontendedbythedefencethatthedefenceisnotchallengingthe

injuriessufferedbythedeceasedandcauseofdeathmentionedinthe

postmortemreportandnoprejudiceiscausedtothedefence,ifDr.R.L.

Sanapisnotexamined. Soinviewofthecontentionsofthedefence

and also considering the said aspects and as defence admitted the

postmortemreport, if Dr. R.L. Sanap is not examined, no prejudice

wouldbecausedtoprosecutionalso. Hence,application(Exh.131)is

partlyallowedon07.03.2015.WhethertheevidenceofRavindraPatil

recordedintheCourtofMetropolitanMagistratebeforecommittalis

relevant,admissibleandcanbereliedunderSection33oftheIndian

EvidenceActwillbediscussedinthelaterpartofjudgment.

40. Thestatementoftheaccusedisalsorecordedu/s.313of

theCr.P.C. Itisthedefenceoftheaccusedthatatthetimeofthe

allegedincident,hewasnotdrivingthevehicle,butoneAshokSingh

wasdrivingthesaidvehicle and the tyrewasburst in the incident.

Accordingtotheaccused,AshokSinghwenttothepolicestationto

statethathewasdrivingthevehicle,butthepolicedidnotrecordhis

statement. Further according to the accused, PW18 Dattatray

KhobrajiraoBhalshankarisnotanexpertandhedidnotexaminethe

bloodsample. Accordingtotheaccused,falsecaseisfiledunderthe

pressureofMedia. Theaccusedalsosubmittedhisfurtherstatement

...19/


vide Exh.171A. According to the accused, there were four persons

presentinthecaratthetimeoftheincident.AshokSinghwasdriving

thevehicle. Theaccusedwassittingnearthedriver'sseatattheleft

side.ThecomplainantRavindraPatilwassittingbehindthedriverand

KamalKhansatonthebackleftseat.Accordingtotheaccused,when

carreachedHillRoadviaManualGonsalvesRoad,suddenlyfrontleft

tyreofthecarwasburst,therebythecarwaspulledtotheleftside.

AshokSinghtriedtoapplybreaksandtriedtocontrolthecar,butby

thenthecarhadclimbedonthestepsofAmericanExpressLaundryand

hittheshutterandstopped. TherewasnofootpathoutsideAmerican

ExpressLaundryat that time. Further accordingto theaccused, he

triedtogetoutofthecar,butfoundthedoornexttohimwasjammed.

AshokSingh,withgreatdifficulty,gotdownfromthedriver'sside.By

thattime,alotofpeoplehadgatheredaroundandtherewasalotof

confusionandchaos. Astheleftfrontdoorwasjammed,theaccused

crossedovertothedriver'sseatfromthefrontleftseat,wherehehad

been sitting and got out from the driver's door. According to the

accused,hewantedtomovethecar,butthenherealizedthatpeople

weretrappedbeneaththecarandshoutingforhelp.Accordingtothe

accused, they tried to lift the car, but could not do so as it was

dangerous tomovethecar manually. Accordingto theaccused, he

instructedAshokSinghtocallthepoliceforhelpandinformBandra

PoliceStationabouttheincident. TheaccusedsawFrancisFernandis

andhiswife,towhomtheaccusedknew,hadalsocometothespot.

Theyasked the accused to leave the spot as the crowdwas getting

violentandtheyhadalsobeatenRavindraPatilandAshokSingh.The

accused waited there for a few minutes. Francis's wife stopped a

...20/


passingcarandtheymadetheaccusedsitandaskedhimtogohome

forhissafety.Theyalsotoldtheaccusedthattheywouldbetakingthe

injuredtoHolyFamilyhospital.KamalKhanhadalreadygoneaway.

41. Accordingtotheaccused,hecametoknowlaterthatone

personhaddiedandfourpersonswereinjured.Atabout10.30a.m.on

28.09.2002,theaccusedreceivedamessagethatAshokSinghhadbeen

detainedinBandraPoliceStation.TheaccusedwenttoBandraPolice

Stationtofindoutwhathadhappenedandnoticedthataviolentmob

had gathered outside and they were shouting slogans against him.

Ashok Singh came and told the accused that there was something

wrongasthepolicehadnotrecordedhisstatement. Theaccusedmet

policeofficerwhotoldhimthattherewastremendouspressureonhim

toarrest the accused. Theaccusedtold thepolice that hewasnot

drivingthecar,butthepolicedidnotlistenandarrestedhiminafalse

case.Accordingtotheaccused,hewenttoBhabhaHospitalandthento

J.J.Hospitalandinbothhospitals,theDoctorsappliedspirittohishand

andtookhisbloodsamples.Accordingtotheaccused,PW18Dattatray

Bhalshankardoesnotknowanythingaboutthechemicalanalysisand

heisnotanexpert. PW12KalpeshVermawasneverpresentandhe

hasbeenplantedbythepoliceastherealvaletYogeshKadamrefused

togivefalsestatementasdesiredbypolice.Accordingtotheaccused,

PW19RajendraKeskarhasneverinspectedthecarandgiventhereport

tosuittheprosecutioncase.Accordingtotheaccused,thepolicehave

prepared the false statements of the witnesses and filed the false

chargesheet.

...21/


42. IhaveheardMr.Gharat,ld.SPPforState,andMr.Shivade,

ld.Advocatefortheaccused,atlength.Exh.181writtennotesfiledby

SPPandExh.184writtennotesfiledLd.Adv.ShriShivade.Ihavealso

gonethroughtheevidencerecordedbeforememinutely.

43. Following points arise for my consideration and I have

recordedmyfindingsthereonforthereasonsasfollow:

POINTS FINDINGS

1. Does the prosecution prove that theevidence of complainant Ravindra PatilrecordedintheCourtoftheAdditionalChiefMetropolitan Magistrate is relevant,admissible,reliedandbeadmittedu/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceAct?

Yes

2. Does the prosecution prove that on28.09.2002 at about 02.45 a.m. nearAmerican Express Cleaners, St. AndrewsRoadandRamdasNayakMarg(HillRoad),Bandra(W.),theaccuseddrovethecarLandCruiserbearingno.MH01DA32inarashandnegligent manner, under the influenceof alcohol with the knowledge that peopleare sleeping in front of American ExpressCleaners and also with knowledge that bydrivingthevehicle inarashandnegligentmanner andunder the influence of liquor,the accusedwas likely to cause deathandtherebycausedthedeathofNurullaShaikhand thereby committed an offencepunishableu/s.304IIoftheIPC?

Proved.

3. Doesprosecutionprovethatatthesamedate,timeandplace,theaccuseddrovethe

...22/


vehicleinarashandnegligentmannersoastoendangerhumanlifeorpersonalsafetyofothers and caused hurt to Kalim Mohd.Pathan and Munna Khan and therebycommittedanoffencepunishableu/s.337oftheIPC?

Proved.

4. Doesprosecutionprovethatatthesamedate,timeandplace,theaccuseddrovethevehicleinarashandnegligentmannerandcausedgrievoushurttoAbdulRaufShaikhandMuslimShaikhandtherebycommittedanoffencepunishableu/s.338oftheIPC?

Proved.

5. Doesprosecutionprovethatatthesamedate, time and place, while driving thevehicleinarashandnegligentmanner,theaccused was not holding a valid drivinglicence and thereby committed an offencepunishableu/s.3(1)r/w.181oftheMotorVehiclesAct?

Proved.

6. Doesprosecutionprovethatatthesamedate, time and place, the accused did nottakereasonablestepstosecurethemedicalaidtothevictimpersonsbyconveyingthemto nearest Medical Practitioner or hospitaland thereby committed an offencepunishableu/s.134oftheMotorVehiclesActpunishable u/s.187 of the Motor VehiclesAct?

Proved.

7. Does the prosecution prove that theaccusedfailedtogiveinformationabouttheincidenttothepoliceandtherebycommittedanoffencepunishableu/s.187oftheMotorVehiclesAct?

Proved

8. Does the prosecution prove that the

...23/


alcoholexceeding30mgper100ml.i.e. .0.062 % mg was found in the blood ofaccused and the accused was under theinfluenceofalcoholtothatextentsoastoincapable of exercisingproper control overthe vehicle and thereby committed anoffence punishable u/s.185 of the MotorVehiclesAct?

Proved.

9.Whatorder? Asperfinalorder.

REASONS

44. Itisvehementlysubmittedbyld.SPPMr.Gharatthatthe

prosecutionhasprovedthechargeslevelledagainsttheaccusedbeyond

reasonable doubt that on the intervening night of 27.09.2002 and

28.09.2002,theaccuseddrovethevehicleLandCruisercarbearingno.

MH01DA32 in a rash and negligent manner and was having

knowledge that the poor bakery workers were sleeping in front of

AmericanExpressCleaners,ranoverthecaroverthemandthevehicle

climbedonthestairsoftheAmericanExpressCleanersandrammed

intotheshutterofthesaidlaundry.Soaccordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,

theaccusedhadtheknowledgethatthesaidpersonsweresleepingat

thesameplacedaily. Inspiteoftheknowledge,theaccuseddrovehis

carinhighspeedanddidnottakerequirecaretherebykillingNurulla

on the spot and injured four persons, out of which two received

grievousinjuries.Furtheraccordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,theaccused

havingbroughtupinthesaidareahasfullknowledgeofthetopography

ofthesaidarea,sincetheaccusedisresidingintheBandratherefrom

last35years.

...24/


45. According to ld. SPPMr. Gharat, it is not disputed that

fromhishouse,accusedwenttotheRainBar&Restaurant.FromRain

BarRestaurant,theaccusedthenwenttoJ.W.Mariot.Accordingtold.

SPP,theprosecutionclaimsthattheaccusedwasdrivingthevehicleon

thedayoftheincident,butthedefencecomeswithastandthatthe

vehicle wasdrivenbyD.W.1AshokSingh(driver), andnotby the

accused. Theld.SPPalsovehementlysubmittedthattheaccusedhad

consumed Bacardi Rum in the Rain Bar Restaurant which gets

corroboratedbynoticingthealcoholtotheextentof 62m.g. in the

bloodoftheaccused. ShriGharatfurthercontendedthatthereisno

disputethatthebloodofSalmanKhanwasextractedinJ.J.Hospitalby

PW20Dr.Pawar. AccordingtoShriGharat,thebloodextractedfor

alcoholtestwasaspertheprocedureandalsotherewaspropersealing

ofthebloodsampleanditwassentforforwardingtoForensicScience

Laboratory,Kalina.Furtheritiscontendedbyld.SPPMr.Gharatthat

PW19RajendraKeskardidnotfindanymechanicalfaultinthevehicle

andfoundlessairinthefrontwheeltyre. Accordingtold.SPP,the

defenceclaimedthattheaccidentoccurredduetoburstingoffrontleft

tyreanditwasonlyapureaccidentcannotbeestablished.

46. According to the ld. SPP, there is also evidence of the

injuredwitnessestodemonstratethattheaccusedgotdownfromthe

rightdriversideportionofthecartoestablishthatitwastheaccused

onlywhowasdrivingthevehicleatthetimeofincidentandnoneelse.

Furtheraccordingtold.SPP,thereisnodisputethatthefourinjured

witnessessustainedinjuriesinthesameincident,atthesameplaceand

...25/


atthesametime.Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,thedeathofNurulla

occurredonthespotduetothedashbythevehicle.Theld.SPPfurther

contendedthatthespotpanchanamaisalsoprovedandvariousarticles

wererecovered. FurtheritiscontendedthatRavindraPatil,whowas

bodyguardoftheaccused,lodgedthecomplaint(Exh.P1)immediately

aftertheincidentagainsttheaccused.Hisevidencewasalsorecorded

beforetheld.MetropolitanMagistrateandhewasalsocrossexamined

at length. The complainant Ravindra Patil was expired in the year

2007. Hisevidenceu/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceActisrelevantand

canberelied,afterframingchargeunderSection304IIoftheI.P.C.

According to Mr. Gharat, the evidence of Ravindra Patil inspires

confidenceandtrustworthy.

47. FurtheritiscontendedbyMr.Gharatthatthoughthereare

someomissions,contradictionsappearedintheevidenceofprosecution

witnesses that canbe ignoredbecause according to Mr. Gharat, the

injuredwitnesses were labours and illiteratend. Theybelong to the

lowerstrata.Furtheritiscontendedthatthoughtherearesomelapses,

errorsnoticedintheinvestigation,thatcanbeignoredandtheCourt

hastoevaluatetheentireevidence.

48. Further it is contended by ld. SPP Mr. Gharat that the

accusedhadadmittedabouttheoccurrenceof theaccidentandalso

aboutthebakeryworkerssustainedinjuries.However,thespecificand

pointeddefencetakenbytheaccusedu/s.313oftheCodeofCriminal

ProcedureisthatthedefencewitnessAshokSingh(DW1)wasdriving

thevehicleatthetimeoftheincident. AccordingtoMr.Gharat,the

...26/


evidenceofD.W.1AshokSinghonthepointofissueofdrivingthecar

isthesubstantiveevidence.

49. The ld. SPP Mr. Gharat contended that the cross

examination of all the prosecution witnesses and the probabilities

attemptedtobebroughtonrecordisthematerial,revolvingaroundthe

mainsubstantiveevidenceofthedefencethatAshokSinghwasdriving

thecar. Therefore,oncethemainsubstantiveevidencefails,nothing

remainstobecorroborated.

50. Furtheraccordingtotheld.SPPMr.Gharatthat,acardinal

principleoflawisthattheprosecutioncaseshallstandonhisownlegs.

Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,itistrue,iftheaccusedfacesthetrial

withhismouthshutandhandstied,theguiltoftheaccusedistobe

decidedonthebasis of theproofof evidencebeyondall reasonable

doubt. According to Mr. Gharat, the interpretation of the term

Reasonable Doubt, when it seen from the judgments of the Apex

Court,itshowsthatthemomenttheaccusedfreeshishandsandopens

hismouthbywayofspecificdefence,thesaidevidencejumpsintothe

arena of appreciation, balancing and weighing the evidence and

becomes the decisive factor for the entire case. According to Mr.

Gharat,therefore,whensuchdefencematerialprovestobeillogicaland

unacceptable, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out as

unbelievable. Thereasonisthattheaccusedhashisownstanceshuts

theotherdoorstopeepthroughtoderivetheconclusionsfavourableto

himandtogetthebenefitoftriflinglapsesandinconsistenciesinthe

evidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesses.

...27/


51. According to ld. SPP Gharat, thus, when the defence is

specificandotherpossibilitiesareruledout,thequestionoffixingthe

liabilityisonlybytwowaysi.e.astowhethertheprosecutionstorythat

theaccusedwasdrivingthevehicleorthespecificdefence,thatAshok

Singh(DW1)wasdrivingthevehicle. Wheneitherofthesestoriesis

accepted,thealternatestorystandsautomaticallydiscardedinthelight

ofthefactthatnootherpossibilityofanyotherpersondrivingthecaris

broughtonrecord.

52. According to ld. SPP Mr. Gharat, the evidence of DW1

AshokSinghcannotbeacceptedasheis agotupwitness. Till the

statementu/s.313oftheCr. P.C. is recorded,nothingis broughton

recordtodemonstratethatDW1AshokSinghwasdrivingthevehicle.

Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,thedefenceneversuggestedtoanyof

theprosecutionwitnessesexaminedtotheeffectthattheD.W.1Ashok

Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence,

accordingtold.SPP,theevidenceofDW1AshokSinghisliabletobe

discarded from taking into consideration. His conduct is illogical,

unnatural,inconsistentandnotconvincingtotheconsciousofordinary

prudentman.

53. Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,iftheentireprosecution

evidenceis lookedinto, it will demonstrate that theprosecutionhas

provedthechargesagainsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.The

defenceraisedbytheaccusedisliabletobediscardedastheevidenceof

aliar.

...28/


54. Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadestronglyrefutedthecharges

levelled against the accused. According to Mr. Shivade, the ld.

Advocate,theprosecutionmiserablyfailedtoprovethechargeslevelled

againsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt. Theld.AdvocateMr.

ShivadevehementlysubmittedthatRavindraPatilisasolesolitaryeye

witnesstotheallegedincident. Hisevidencewasrecordedwhenthe

accusedfacedthechargeu/s.304Aof the IPC. Afterexamining16

witnesses in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, the case was

committedtotheCourtofSessions.InSessionsCourt,retrialwasheld.

ThecomplainantPatilwasexpiredintheyear2007.Itiscontendedby

Mr.ShivadethattheevidenceofRavindraPatilisinadmissibleunder

Section33oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Itisfurthercontendedthatthe

provisionsofSec.33oftheIndianEvidenceActarenotcompliedwithin

this case because accused in first proceeding hadnoopportunity to

crossexaminePatilinrelationtotheoffenceu/s.304IIastheearlier

trialwasinrelationtotheoffence304Aandothersections.Therefore,

eveniftheSessionsCourttrialisbetweenthesameparties,therecourse

cannot be taken to Sec.33. Further according to Mr. Shivade, ld.

Counsel,thequestionandissueintheMagisterialtrialandtheSessions

Courttrialarenotsubstantiallythesame.

55. Furtheritiscontendedthattheaccusedwasnotdrivingthe

vehicleasallegedbytheprosecution. DW1AshokSinghwasdriving

thevehicleatthetimeoftheaccident.Furtheritiscontendedthatthe

caroftheaccusedcametoHillRoadviaManualGonsalvesRoaddriven

byDW1AshokSingh. ThesaidroadisparalleltoSt.AndrewsRoad

...29/


anditmeetsHillRoadbeforeSt.AndrewsRoad. Itiscontendedthat

therewasasuddentyreburstofthefront left tyreandthesteering

becamehardandbeforedrivertookturn,thecarhadclimbedthestairs

andhittheshutter.

56. ItiscontendedthatPW19RajendraKeskarexaminedthe

carinvolvedintheaccident,buttheevidenceofPW19Keskardoesnot

inspire confidence. According to Mr. Shivade, ld. Advocate, the

prosecutionhascriticizedthesaidexpertandevendemandedtheaction

againsthim.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,thus,itwasapureaccidentfor

whichnoonecanbeblamed. Furtheritiscontendedbyld.Advocate

Mr.Shivadethat if theevidenceof complainantPatil is appreciated,

then,onecaninferthatthesaidevidencedoesnotinspireconfidenceas

theevidenceisofthematerialimprovements.Therearealsoomissions

intheevidenceof Patil andtherefore, the ld. AdvocateMr.Shivade

urgedthatitisextremelyunsafetorelyonsuchevidence.Itisfurther

contendedthattheFIRlodgedisalsoatbelatedstageasthecopyofthe

FIRwasnotdispatchedtotheCourtofMetropolitanMagistratewithin

stipulatedperiodasrequiredbylaw. Itisfurthercontendedbyld.

Advocate Mr. Shivade that the interview given by Patil to MidDay

publishedon30.09.2002whichwasadmittedbyPatilandstatesthat

driverAltafwasatthewheel. Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,

AltafwashavinggiddinessatJ.W.MariotHotel,therefore,heinformed

AshoktocometoJ.W.MariotHotelinordertoreachtheaccusedathis

residence. WhilereturningtothehomefromJ.W.MariotHotel,the

allegedaccidenthadoccurred. Accordingtodefence,theincidentisa

pureaccident.

...30/


57. Further it is contended that the injured witnesses were

underthevehicle,therefore,itwashighlyimprobablethattheywerein

apositiontoseetheaccusedgettingdownfromtherightsideportionof

thecar.Furtheritiscontendedthattheprosecutionhasnotexamined

YogeshVermaandotherwitnessesfromJ.W.Marriot.

58. Furtherit iscontendedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat

aftertheaccident,themobgatheredonthespotwhichbecamefurious.

Thepersonsgatheredwerearmedwiththerodsandstones.Therewas

danger tothe lifeof accused, therefore, PW7Francis hastakenthe

accusedawayfromthemobandtheaccusedwasmadetositinthecar

stoppedbywifeofPW7inordertoleavetheplace. Soaccordingto

Mr. Shivade, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the

accused ran away from the spot. According to ld. Advocate Mr.

Shivade, story of the prosecution that the accused had consumed

alcoholisafabricatedstory. Theaccusedneverconsumedalcoholin

RainBarRestaurant.Thereisnostrongevidencetothateffectadduced

by the prosecution. It is contended that the accused was taken to

BhabhaHospital.However,nomedicalreportsofBhabhaHospitalare

produced on record. It is contended that IO PW27 Shengal has

attemptedtoimprovethecasebysayingthatAPISuryavanshidisclosed

thatfacilityofbloodextractionwasnotavailableinBhabhaHospital.

FurtheritiscontendedthatDr.ShashikantPawarwhodrawtheblood

fromtheaccuseddidnotfindaccusedundertheinfluenceofalcohol.It

isalsoarguedthattheMedical OfficerDr.Pawardidnotfollowthe

prescribedprocedureforextractingtheblood,therebythereisviolation

ofRule3and4ofBombayProhibition(Medical&Blood)Rules1959,

...31/


providestheseprecautions.Furtheritisalsocontendedthattheblood

samplewassealedbythewardboyandwhatprecautionsweretakenby

thewardboywhilesealingarenotforthcoming.Furtheritiscontended

thatpreservativeSodiumFluoridewasnotaddedinthesampleinorder

topreventfermentation. Ifthepreservativeisnotadded,thenitwill

give rise to the fermentation in the blood which generates alcohol,

therebyitmayaffectendresult.

59. Ld.CounselMr.Shivadeattackedheavilyontheevidence

ofPW18Bhalshankarwhoanalyzedthebloodsampleoftheaccused.

Itiscontendedthatthebloodsamplesweredespatchednotwithintime

totheLaboratory.Themannerinwhichthebloodsampleswerekeptin

policestationisalsosuspicious. Norefrigerationwasprovidedinthe

policestation.Accordingtold.AdvocateShriShivade,theevidenceof

PW18Bhalshankarishighlyunsatisfactory.PW18cannotsayhowhe

conductedmodifieddiffusionoxidationmethod.4mlbloodwasfound

aftermeasuringbyPW18Bhalshankar,buthowever,6ccbloodwas

sent.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,PW18Bhalshankardidnottakeproper

precautions. According to Mr. Shivade, the evidence of PW18 is

sufferedfromlotofinfirmitiesandtherefore,hisevidencecannotbe

acceptedandsuch,theevidenceofalcoholconsumptionneedstobe

excludedfromconsideration.

60. Furtherit is contendedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat

death of Nurulla was not due to the dash given by the vehicle.

AccordingtoShriShivade,thecranewascalledtoremovethevehicle.

Whenthecranewasapplied,thebumpercameupduetoweightofthe

...32/


carandcar fell down. AccordingtoMr.Shivade,Nurullasustained

injuries due to fall of vehicle. It is contended that there are

circumstancestoshowthatNurullawasaliveaftertheaccident.Soitis

contendedthatthedeathofNurullawasnotcausedduetorashand

negligentdriving.Itisalsovehementlysubmittedbyld.AdvocateMr.

Shivadethat thereare lapses, latchesanderrors intheinvestigation

whichisfataltothecaseofprosecution. AccordingtoMr.Shivade,

there is no evidence of finger prints produced on record by the

prosecution though the finger prints of the accused were sent for

comparisonwiththefingerprintsappearingonthesteeringwheel.No

photographs of the vehicle are taken about its position after the

accident. The front left tyre of the vehicle was not sent to the

Laboratoryforexamination. Noparkingtagwasproducedonrecord

whichisavalidpieceofevidencetoshowaboutparkingofthevehicle

inJ.W.MariotHotel. Furthertherearebelatedstatementsrecorded

duringinvestigation. ThesupplementarystatementofRavindraPatil,

bodyguard,wasrecordedon01.10.2002wherehemadeimprovements

to bring the case against the accused u/s.304II of the IPC. The

Investigating Officer did not record the statements of the Security

GuardintheJ.W.MariotaswellasYogeshKadam.YogeshKadamwas

theValetatJ.W.MariotHotelwho,accordingtoprosecution,tookthe

cartoValetPark.ThenameofYogeshKadamwaswrittenonValettag

andtheprosecutionallegedthatthetagwasgiventotheaccusedby

YogeshKadam.Soaccordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,theevidence

of Yogesh Kadam was crucial and by not examining him, adverse

inferencecanbedrawnagainsttheprosecution. Lastlyitissubmitted

thattheaccusedisfalselyimplicatedonthepressureofthemedia.

...33/


61. Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.Shivade,themedia,mobwas

gatheredinfrontofthepolicestationandifthepolicehadnamedthe

driverAshokasaccused,therewouldhavebeenallegationsfromthe

mobaswellasthemediathatthepoliceareattemptingtosaveSalman

Khan. Hence, according to ld. Advocate, therefore, naming Salman

Khanwasthebest available optionforpoliceandstrongest possible

reasonwhytheyimplicatedtheaccused.Soaccordingtodefence,the

evidenceofDW1inspiresconfidenceandhewasexaminedattheright

time after conclusion of prosecution evidence and after recording

statementoftheaccusedu/s.313oftheCr.P.C.Thestagetoexamine

defencewitnesswouldcomeafterrecordingstatementoftheaccused.

Thisisexactlydoneinthepresentcase. Soaccordingtold.Advocate

fortheaccused,theaccusedhasdemonstratedthatitwasDW1who

drove the vehicle. The evidence led by accused is probable and

acceptable. Ld.AdvocateMr.ShivadewouldsubmitthatInvestigating

Officer interrogated Ashok Singh, but did not record his statement

whichitselfdemonstrateshowthepoliceareinterestedinfilingthecase

againstSalmanKhan.Furtheritiscontendedthattheevidenceledby

the prosecution is suffered from infirmities, contradictions and

omissionsanddoesinspireconfidenceatall.TheevidenceofRavindra

PatilintheCourtofMetropolitanMagistratecannotbeadmittedand

read in Sessions Trial. Lapses, errors and lacunas created in the

prosecutionstoryrenderedtheprosecutioncaseinvalidandnotworthy

tobeaccepted.Lastly,itissubmittedthatthereisalwayspresumption

ofinnocenceinfavouroftheaccusedandaccordingtoMr.Shivade,if

totalityofevidenceistakenintoconsideration,itcansafelybesaidthat

...34/


theprosecutionmiserablyfailedtoprovethechargelevelledagainstthe

accusedbeyondreasonabledoubtandtherefore,theaccusedisentitled

foracquittal.

62. Inthiscase,theadmittedfactsarethat,theaccusedvisited

RainBar&Restaurant. BodyguardRavindraPatilwaswithaccused.

AccusedthenvisitedJ.W.MariotHotel.Theaccidentoccurredandthe

vehicleclimbedthestairsofAmericanExpressLaundryandranoverthe

personsandwentintotheshutterofAmericanExpressLaundry. The

defencealsoadmittedthefollowingdocuments:

(i) CauseofDeathCertificateofdeceasedNurulla(Exh.19),

(ii) P.M.reportofdeceasedNurulla(Exh.20[Exh.149]),

(iii) Inquestpanchanama(Exh.150),

(iv) InjuryCertificatesofKalimMohammadPathan(Exh.151),

MunnabhaiKhan(Exh.152),AbdulRaufSheikh(Exh.155)andMuslim

Shaikh(Exh.156),

(v) C.A.Reports(Exh.157Ato157E),

(vi) Intheincident,NurullaSheikhwasexpiredandfourothers

wereinjured.ThecarLandCruiserwasbelongingtotheaccused.

(vii) ThethirdoccupantofthecarwasoneMr.KamalKhanwho

wassingerandwasoccupyingthebackseatofthecar.

(viii) Theaccusedwasarrestedon28.09.2002.

(ix) TheaccusedwassentformedicalexaminationtoBhabha

Hospitalandthereafteratabout01.30p.m.wassenttoSirJ.J.Hospital.

(x) TheaccusedadmittedthathisbloodwasextractedinJ.J.

Hospital.

...35/


63. The prosecution has tendered in evidence the following

articles:

(i) TheFiberpieceofvehicle(Art.1),

(ii) Soilontyre(Art.2),

(iii) Bloodstainedsoil(Art.3),

(iv) PiecesofFiberGlass(Art.4),

(v) Pieceofplasticalongwithlabel(Art.5),

(vi) Colorscratchedfromshutter(Art.6),

(vii) Soilfromspot(Art.7),

(viii) Glassofheadlight(Art.8),

(ix) ColourphotosofshuttershowntoPW1bydefence(Art.9).

64. Inthelightoftheabovesaidadmittedfacts,theevidenceof

theprosecutionisrequiredtobeevaluatedandscrutinizedtoascertain

astowhetherthesameisacceptabletosaythattheprosecutionhas

provedtheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondallreasonabledoubtandalsoto

seeastowhetherthedefenceputforthbytheaccusedcanbeaccepted

onthetouchstoneofthelogicofanordinaryprudentman. Thusthe

Court has to see if the defence stands sustained on the theory of

preponderanceofprobabilityorthedepositionsofthewitnessesdonot

giveroomtothedoubtswhichcanbesaidasreasonabledoubts.

Astopointnos.1to8.

A) Panchanama:

65. PW1SambhaGauda was running a tea stall near Ram

Temple, S.V. Road, Bandra. OneArjunalsousedtopreparesnacks

...36/


adjoiningtotheteastallofPW1Sambha.PW1SambhaGaudaisthe

witnessonspotpanchanama. On28.09.2002atabout03.00a.m.he

wascalled byBandra police near AmericanLaundryonBandra Hill

Road.Policeinformedhimthatacarwasinvolvedintheaccidentand

maderequesttoactasapanch.PW1andArjunhadgonetothespot.

Onepoliceofficer,notinuniform,waspresentthere. PW1deposed

thatthesaidpersonwasPatil.Patilhadshownpanchasandpolicethe

spot of the incident. One big white car entered in the American

Laundry.Frontportionofthecarwasdamaged.Thebumperofthecar

wasalsotouchedtheshutterofthelaundry.Themotorcarhadclimbed

threestairsandwentinAmericanLaundry. PW1deposedthat45

personswerealsofoundinjuredbeneaththecar.

66. IthascomeintheevidenceofPW1Gaudathatthepolice

hadmeasuredthespot,collectedthecolourscratchoftheshutter.The

rare side of the wheel of the car was sustainedwith blood. Police

collectedbloodstainsfromthespot,collectedbrokenglasspiecesand

also the number plate. Police also packed the said articles. The

panchanama was read over to PW1 in Hindi and thereafter PW1

signedthepanchanamaaswellasArjunsignedthepanchanama.

67. PW1Gaudaidentifiedthespotpanchanama(Exh.28)and

alsoidentifiedthearticles1to8whicharedescribedabove.Thelabels

affixedontheenvelopsbearthesignaturesofPW1Gauda.

68. PW1isalsocrossexaminedatlengthbytheld.Advocate

fortheaccused.PW1admittedthathedoesnotpossessanylicenceto

...37/


runtheteastall.MunicipalityusedtoseizethestallandarticlesofPW

1 and PW1 used to pay fine to B.M.C. PW1 stated in cross

examinationthatasthepoliceusedtocallhim,hehadgoneasperthe

sayofpolice.PW1admittedthatinordertoavoidconflictwithpolice,

heusedtogoonwiththepolice.

69. Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlysubmittedthat

thePW1Gaudaistheregularpanchavailableforpoliceandtherefore,

noreliancecanbeplacedonhisevidence. Theld.SPPreliedonthe

reportedjudgmentinthecaseofDeepakGhanashyamNaikv/s.State

ofMaharashtra,1989,CRI.L.J. 1181 Inthesaidcitedcase,Arun

Madhav Zankar (PW2) was called as a panch witness for taking

personal searchof the appellant. The said panchwitness has been

attacked by the ld. Advocate for the accused calling him as a

professional panch. Panchwitness admitted that hehadactedas a

panchonceortwice. ItisobservedbytheirLordshipsoftheHon'ble

High Court are not able to persuade themselves to agree with the

submissionsofMr.Sanghanithatheisaprofessionalpanchbecausehe

isnotapersondoingnothingandunderthepoliceobligationtoactasa

panch witness. In fact, the panch witness has fruits business. No

questionwasputtohimincrossexaminationtoelicitinformationabout

thecircumstancesinwhichhehappenedtoactasapanchwitnessonce

ortwiceearlier. Intheabsenceofanyquestionputtohimincross

examinationtoseeksuchanexplanation,itisnotpossibletoguessin

what circumstances he becamea panch witness in one or two trial

occasions.Itisobservedthatthepanchwitnessisnotanidlepersonor

manwithoutmeans. Heis infactabusinessmanandtherewasno

...38/


necessity for him to comply with the request of police either for

considerationorotherwiseortobeinagoodbooksofthepolice.

70. Inourcaseinhand,thepanchwitnessisahawkerandhe

wasdoingthebusinessofteaandhasnonecessitytocomplywiththe

requestofthepoliceeitherforconsiderationorotherwisetobeina

goodbooksofpolice,thenevenhehasactedasapanchonsomeearlier

occasions,hisevidencecannotbedoubted.

71. In crossexamination PW1 Gauda also admitted that

panchanamawasnotdrawninthepolicestation.Hehadnotseenthe

spot of incident earlier. There is a bakery existed near American

Laundry.AmericanLaundryandbakeryareadjacenttoeachother.He

alsostatedthatthespotofincidentwaslocatedonthesteps.Hesigned

onthe labelsonthespotof incident. Hedoesnotknowtimingof

panchanama. Panchanama was written down by standing on the

footpathonHillRoad. Thelefttyreofthecarwasfoundpunctured.

Thecarwasfoundinasamepositionpriortopanchanamaandafterthe

panchanamawhenheleftthespotoftheincident. PW1alsostated

thathehadnotseenwhetherthecarwasremovedwiththehelpof

crane in order to remove the injured. He cannot say whether the

injuredwereremovedfromthespotpriortodrawingpanchanamaor

after conclusion of the panchanama. The injured were found in

entangledbelowtheleftwheelofthecar. Hestatedthatpeoplewere

tryingtoleavethecarfromthespot.PW1statedthatitdidnothappen

thatthepoliceenteredinthecarbyopeningthedoorofthecarand

madeinspectionandpolicetookRCBook,certifiedcopyofNewIndia

...39/


Insurance,keysintheirpossession.PW1contradictedportionmarked

Ainthepanchanama.

72. PW1Gaudaalsoadmittedthatwhateverarticlesfoundon

the spot were taken in the possession by police and packed in his

presence.Thepolicealsoremovedthecarwiththeaidofcraneinhis

presence.PW1alsostatedthathehadnotseenwhetherbumperofthe

carwasremovedwhenthecranewastouchedtothatportionatthe

timeofremovingthecar.Policealsohadtakenthemeasurementofthe

carinhispresence. WhenPW1signedonthepanchanama,carwas

notpresentneartheshutter.Policealsohadtakenthemarkingofthe

carandalsohadtakenthemeasurementofthedistancefromtheplace

wherethecarwasfoundtilltheroadandalsothedistancefromthecar

till theshutteroftheAmericanLaundry. PW1Gaudadeniedinthe

crossexaminationthatnopanchanamawasdrawninhispresenceand

hesignedit,inthepolicestation.PW1SambhaGaudasawtheblood

onlyonthetyreandnotontheotherplace.

73. IftheevidenceofPW1SambhaGaudaislookedinto,Ifind

thathisevidenceinspiresconfidence.Thespotpanchanamawasdrawn

inhispresenceandthereisnoreasonforhimtodeposeinfavourofthe

prosecution.

B) Whether the evidence of Ravindra Himmatrao Patil

recorded before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bandra,inC.C.No.490/PS/2005isrelevant,admissible u/s.33of

theIndianEvidenceActandcanbereliedintheproceedingagainst

...40/


theaccused:

74. This is a crucial aspect of the case as to whether the

evidence of Ravindra Himmatrao Patil recorded in the Court of ld.

AdditionalMetropolitanMagistrateisrelevant,admissible,andberelied

inthiscase.Ihavealsodiscussedtheeventsafterfilingchargesheetin

the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, and thereafter what had

happenedinparanos.24to31ofthejudgment.Theld.SPPMr.Gharat

filedanapplication(Exh.131)fortakingtheevidenceofRavindraH.

PatilandDr.R.L.Sanaponrecord. RavindraPatilwasexpiredinthe

year2007. On07.03.2015Ihavedecidedthesaidapplicationandin

viewoftheratiolaiddowninthecaseofBipinShantilalPanchalVs.

StateofGujaratandAnother[(2001)3SupremeCourtCases1]the

evidenceof RavindraPatil recorded in theCourtof ld. Metropolitan

MagistrateistakenonrecordinthecaseinhandanditisatExh.141.

Dr.R.L.SanapperformedpostmortemonthedeadbodyofNurulla.Dr.

Sanap is reported to be residing in U.S.A. The defence specifically

mentionedinthesaythatthedefenceisnotchallengingtheinjuries

caused by the deceased and cause of death mentioned in the

postmortemreportandnoprejudiceiscausedtothedefenceifDr.R.L.

Sanapisnotexamined. SotheevidenceofRavindraPatilistakenon

recordinthepresentcase.Theprosecutionaswellastheaccusedwere

granted liberty to refer the saidevidenceduring the examinationof

RajendraKadam(PW26)whorecordedthecomplaintofRavindraPatil

andalsoInvestigatingOfficerShengal(PW27).Furthertherelevancy

andadmissibilityoftheevidenceofRavindraPatiltakenonrecordisto

bedecidednow.

...41/


75. It ispertinenttonotethattheprosecutionhasexamined

PW25 Kailash Behre, brother of Ravindra Patil (deceased/

complainant). AccordingtoPW25,RavindraPatilwasthebodyguard

oftheaccusedintheyear2002.Aftertheincident,RavindraPatilwas

transferred to LA Division, Tardeo. PW25 Kailash deposed that

RavindraPatilwasnotkeepingwellandhecouldnotrecoverfromthe

illnessandwasexpiredon03.10.2007.DeathCertificateisatExh.140.

ThedefencealsodidnotseriouslydisputeaboutthedeathofRavindra

Patil.

76. The ld. SPP Mr. Gharat vehemently submitted that the

evidenceofRavindraPatiltakenonrecordisrelevantandbeadmitted

u/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceAct.ItisnecessarytoreproduceSection

33oftheIndianEvidenceActwhichreadsasunder:

33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in

subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein

stated:

Evidencegivenbyawitnessinajudicialproceedingor

before any person authorised by law to take it, is

relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent

judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same

judicialproceeding,thetruthofthefactswhichitstates,

when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is

incapableofgivingevidence,oriskeptoutofthewayby

theadverseparty,orifhispresencecannotbeobtained

withoutanamountofdelayorexpensewhich,underthe

...42/


circumstances of the case, the Court considers

unreasonable:

Provided

thattheproceedingswasbetweenthesameparties

ortheirrepresentativesininterest;

thattheadversepartyinthefirstproceedinghad

therightandopportunitytocrossexamine;

thatthequestionsinissueweresubstantiallythe

sameinthefirstasinthesecondproceeding.

ExplanationAcriminaltrialorinquiryshallbe

deemedtobeaproceedingbetweentheprosecutorand

theaccusedwithinthemeaningofthissection.

77. Itisvehementlysubmittedbyld.SPPMr.Gharatthatafter

recordingoftheevidenceofwitnesses,thecasewascommittedtothe

CourtofSessionsastheld.MetropolitanMagistratewasoftheopinion

thatchargeu/s.304IIwouldbeattracted. MyLd.Predecessoragain

framed the charges including charge u/s.304II of the IPC after

committal. As discussed in aboveparasand in viewof the various

provisions in Cr.P.C. and after hearing the ld. defence Counsel Mr.

Shivade and then APP Mr. Kenjalkar, it was decided to take the

evidenceafresh. Thesummonswasissuedtothewitnessesincluding

complainant Ravindra Patil, but it was informed to the Court that

RavindraPatilwasexpiredduetoTuberculosison03.10.2007.

78. Therefore,theld.SPPundersuchcircumstances,contended

thatSec.33oftheIndianEvidenceActneedstobeinvoked.According

...43/


tohim,Sec.33oftheIndianEvidenceActprovidesthattheevidence

givenbyawitnessinajudicialproceedingisrelevantforthepurposeof

provinginalaterstageofsamejudicialproceeding,thetruthofthe

facts which is states, whenthewitness is deador cannot be found.

Accordingtold.SPPMr.Gharat,theevidenceofRavindraPatilasPW1

inthecaseNo.490/PS/2005wascompletedbeforetheld.Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the facts of the case and full

opportunity of crossexamination was given to the accused, which

satisfiedallthethreeconditionsoftheprovisotoSec.33. Itisfurther

contendedbytheld.SPPthattheaccusedhasgotfullopportunityto

rebuttheentireevidenceofRavindraPatil. Accordingtold.SPPMr.

Gharat,factsaretoberebutted,provedordisprovedonthetouchstone

ofthecrossexamination. Accordingtold.SPP,truthofthefactswas

testedincrossexaminationofthedefence.Theaccusedalsoconfronted

theeveryquestionavailablewiththeaccused.

79. Accordingtold.SPP,theevidenceofRavindraPatilwould

be the same even after framing the charge u/s.304II of the IPC.

Accordingtold.SPP,.thereareallegationsagainsttheaccusedthaton

thefatefuldayoftheincident,theaccuseddrovethecarinarashand

negligent manner under the influence of liquor and was having

knowledge that the labourers were sleeping in front of American

Laundry.Theaccusedisresidingnearthespotofincidentandbrought

up in Mumbai. The FIR was lodged by Ravindra Patil. His

examinationinchief was also recorded in viewof FIR filed by him.

Accordingtold.SPP,factsofthecasewouldbethesamewhencharge

u/s.304AoftheIPCwasframedearlierandaftercommittal, charge

...44/


u/s.304II of the IPC is framed. According to ld. SPP, lawimposes

certaindutiesonthepersonnottodrivethecarundertheinfluenceof

liquorandincallousandnegligentmanner.Moreover,thepersonalso

knowsthatwithoutdrivinglicence,oneshouldnotdrivethevehicle.So

whatelsewouldbetheknowledge.

80. Thedefence of the accused is that the accusedwas not

drivingthevehicle,DW1AshokSinghwasdrivingthevehicle.Charge

u/sSec.304IIoftheIPCisframedinthiscasethattheaccuseddrove

thecarinrashandnegligentmannerundertheinfluenceofalcohol

with the knowledge that people are sleeping in front of American

expressCleanersandtheaccusedwashavingknowledgethatbydriving

thevehicleinrashandnegligentmannerunderinfluenceofliquorhe

waslikelytocausedeathandcauseddeathofNurullaShaikh. Inthe

evidence,RavindraPatilstatedallthefactsoftheincident.Soevenif

chargeu/s.304IIofIPCisframedinthepresentcase,thefactswould

bethesame. ThedefencealsocrossexaminedRavindraPatil inthe

Metropolitan Magistrate Court exhaustively and substantively on the

various dates. The omissions were also brought on record by the

defence.SuggestionwasalsogiventocomplainantRavindraPatilthat

theaccusedwasnotdrivingthevehicleindrunkenstate. Suggestion

wasalsogiventothecomplainantthattheaccusedwasnotdrivingthe

carinthebeginningofincidentnight.Suggestionwasalsogiventothe

complainant that on 01.10.2002 his supplementary statement was

recordedinordertoinvolvetheaccusedinthecase.

...45/


81. So fullest opportunity is given to the accused to cross

examineRavindraPatilintheAdditionalChiefMetropolitanMagistrate

Courtandthesaidopportunitywasavailedbytheaccused.Soitcannot

besaidthattheaccusedwasnothavingopportunitytocrossexamine

RavindraPatil.

82. Nowquestionremainsaboutknowledge. Asstatedbyme

above,thelawimposescertaindutiesonanypersonthatheshouldnot

drivethevehicleundertheinfluenceofliquorandalsowithoutlicence.

Everypersonishavingthesameknowledge. Thesearetheimportant

ingredientsofSec.304IIoftheI.P.C.Soeverypersonhasknowledge

abouttheabovethingsandtheaccusedexhaustivelycrossexaminedthe

complainantbyputtingsuggestionthattheaccusedwasnotdrivingthe

vehicleandhewasnotinadrunkenstateofhealth.Soinmyopinion,

itwillbesafetoadmittheevidenceofRavindraPatilincaseinhand

u/s.33oftheIndianEvidenceAct. TheingredientsofSec.33arefully

attractedinourcasepertainingtotheevidenceofRavindraPatil.

83. Theld.SPPalsoreliedonthejudgmentof 1881Indian

LawReporter,page42, inthematterofpetitionof RochaMohato

(Appellant) The Empress v. Rochia Mohato. It is necessary to

reproducesomeportionofthesaidcaseandthesameisasfollows:

Thisisanappealfromaconvictionbyajuryinrespect

ofwhichwecanonlyinterfereiftherehasbeensome

errorof lawormisdirectionbytheJudge. Nowit is

allegedthatweoughttointerfereontwogrounds:first,

thatevidencehasbeenwronglyplacedbeforethejury;

...46/


andsecondly,thatincertainparticularstherehasbeena

misdirection,orratherawantofdirectionbytheJudge.

Withrespecttothefirstgroundthatimproperevidence

hasbeenplacedbeforethejury,thecomplaintis,that

the depositions of twowitnesses whowere examined

beforetheMagistratewereimproperlyallowedbythe

Judgetobeputinbytheprosecutionandusedinthe

SessionsCourtunderthefollowingcircumstances:

One of these witnesses was the person whom the

defendantandhispartywereaccusedofassaulting,and

whohas since died. Now, before the Magistrate the

only complaintwasachargeofgrievoushurt. Butin

consequenceofthedeathofthepersonwhowashurt

viz., Khedroo, other charges were added before the

SessionsJudge,viz,achargeofmurderandachargeof

culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In

consequence of these additional charges, it is argued

that,underS.33oftheEvidenceAct,thequestionsin

issue before the Sessions Court, and before the

Magistrate,werenotsubstantiallythesameinthetwo

proceedings. Asamatteroffact,theprisonerhasonly

beenconvictedofgrievoushurt;andthereforetheissue

thatwasbeforetheMagistratewasonlyissuethathas

beendecidedagainsttheaccusedbythejury.Itappears

tous,that,bythequestionsinissue,itisnotintended

that, in a case where the prisoner injured dies

subsequentlytotheenquirybeforetheMagistrate,his

...47/


evidence is not tobeusedbefore theSessionsCourt,

becauseinconsequenceofhisdeathotherchargesare

framedagainsttheaccused.Weareofopinionthatthe

evidence of the deceased in this case was admissible

unders.33,andevenifitwerenotadmissibleunders.

33,thatitwouldbeadmissibleunderthefirstclauseof

s. 32of theEvidenceAct. Thequestionwhetherthe

proviso to s. 33 is applicable, that is, whether the

questionsatissuearesubstantiallythesame,depends

uponwhetherthesameevidenceisapplicable,although

differentconsequencesmayfollowfromthesameact.

Now,heretheactwas thestrokesof aswordwhich,

though it didnot immediatelycausethedeathof the

deceasedperson,yetconducedtobringaboutthatresult

subsequently. In consequence of the person having

died,thegravityof theoffencebecamepresumptively

increased;buttheevidencetoprovetheactwithwhich

theaccusedwaschargedremainedpreciselythesame.

We therefore think that this evidence was properly

admittedunders.33.

84. Theld.SPPalsoreliedonthecaseofTheStateV/s.Suraj

Bali&Ors.[1982CRI.L.J.1223(AllahabadHighCourt,Lucknow

Bench)]whereinitisheldasunder:

EvidenceAct(1872),Section33Depositionofadead

witnessAdmissibilityDirectionbyAppellantCourtfor

commitmentunderSection423(1)(b)CriminalP.C.

...48/


aftersettingasideconvictionFormerproceedingsin

trial Court not rendered illegal commitment to

SessionsDeathofawitnessHisdepositioninfirst

trialAdmissibleinSessionsCourt.

Where an appellant Court, after setting aside

conviction, directs the trial Magistrate under Section

423(1) (b), Criminal P. C. to commit the accused to

SessionsCourt,theformerproceedingsinthetrialCourt

arenotrenderedwithoutjurisdictionandillegalanda

deposition of a witness in those proceedings can be

broughtonrecordintheSessionsCourtundersection

33oftheEvidenceActifthewitnessisdead.

85. In this case, the opposite parties Suraj Bali, Misri Lal,

Ramanand,Sadgu,ShankarandMotilalwereprosecutedunderSections

147, 342, 324/ 149, 323/149of the IndianPenal Codebefore the

JudicialMagistrate,Lucknow.TheMagistraterecordedthestatements

ofthevariouswitnessesincludingthatofoneRamchandra(PW2).The

ld.Magistrateconvictedandsentencedtheoppositepartiestoundergo

varioustermsoftheimprisonment.Theoppositepartiesappealedand

theappellate court was of the view that the evidence indicated the

allegedcommission of an offence u/s.387of the IndianPenal Code

whichwasexclusivelytriablebytheCourtofSessions.Theconviction

wassetasideandthematterwasremandedtotheld.Magistratewitha

directionthatheshouldcommitthecasetotheCourtofSessionsona

proper charge. The case was committed u/s.387 of the IPC. It

...49/


transpired that PW2 Ramchandra (who had been examined by the

Magistrate)diedbefore,hecouldbeexaminedatthetrialbeforethe

Assistant Sessions Judge. The Public Prosecutor presented an

applicationtoexaminefatherofRamchandratoprovethelatterdeath

toenabletheprosecutiontoapplyforthetransferenceofthedeposition

ofRamchandrafromtherecordoftheCourtoftheMagistrateontothe

recordoftheSessionsTrialasevidenceu/s.33oftheEvidenceAct.The

saidapplicationwasrejected.Itisheldinpara7bytheHon'bleHigh

Courtasunder:

7. ThelearnedAssistantSessionsJudgewastomy

mindnotcorrectwhenherejectedtheapplication.Itis,

therefore,directedthattheStateshallhavethelibertyto

leadevidencetoprovethatRamChandraisdeadandto

bringhisearlierdepositionontherecordunderSection

33EvidenceAct.Astowhatvalueshouldattachtothat

statementisforthetrialCourttodecide,andnotforthis

Court.

86. Theld.SPPalsoreliedonthecaseofRamvilasandothers

v/s.StateofMadhyaPradesh(1985CRI.L.J.1773).

(A)EvidenceAct(1of1872),S.33Applicability

Essentialrequirements.

Foradmissibilityoftherecordedevidenceofapersonin

accordancewithS.33,oneoftheessentialrequirements

is that thewitness is deador cannot be found, or is

incapableofgivingevidenceoriskeptoutofthewayby

theadverseparty, orhispresencecannotbeobtained

...50/


withoutanamountofdelayorexpense,whichunderthe

circumstances of the case, the Court considers

unreasonable. Theallegationhastobelegallyproved

likeanyotherfactandtheburdenorproofrestsupon

thepartywhichinvokesthesection.(Para9)

WhereS.33wassoughttobeinvokedinrespectofa

prosecutionwitnessonthegroundofherdeathitwas

heldthatitwasfortheprosecutiontoprovethealleged

deathofthatwitnessaccordingtolawanditcannotbe

said that her death was impliedly admitted by not

challenging the report regarding her death. In a

criminalcase,itisnotopentotheaccusedtowaiveits

proof.Consentforwantofobjectiononthepartofthe

accusedor his counsel to the depositionof a witness

beingbroughtonrecordunderthesaidsectioncannot

makeitadmissible,ifitisnototherwiseso.Thus,when

thedeathwasnotprovedbytheprosecution,itwasnot

entitledtoresorttoS.33(para9)

AlsoS.33contemplates(i)asubsequentjudicial

proceedinginwhichthatpersonhastobeexaminedasa

witnessor(ii)asubsequentstageatwhichthatperson

has tobeexaminedas a witness in thesame judicial

proceedingasthecasemaybe.(para10)

87. Inthesaidcase,theappellantswerechargedwiththe

allegedoffencesu/s.148, 302, 149, 307/149and395/397of the

Indian Penal Code. After holding a trial, the appellants were

...51/


convicted.TheconvictionisbasedonthesolitarytestimonyofMrs.

Gangadevi(PW27)andfewpiecesofcircumstantialevidence.Her

evidence was recorded on 07.01.1981 on which date she was

examined in chief, crossexamined and discharged. Her dying

declarationwasrecordedon25.12.1981bytheExecutiveMagistrate

Mr. Pandey (DW2). That statement had not been filed by the

prosecution nor had a copy thereof delivered to any of the

appellants. The application was filed on 02.02.1981 by the

appellants for recallingof PW7Gangadevi. Thesaidapplication

wasrejectedbytheSessionsCourt,butinRevisiontheHon'bleHigh

Court allowed the application. The Sessions Court directed

Gangadevi(PW7)toresummonforfurthercrossexaminationand

postedthecaseto05.03.1981.Thematterwasadjournedfromtime

totime. Whenthematterwasfixedon23.04.1981,thesummons

reportofGangadevihadbeenwrittentotheeffectthatshehaddied

on 08.04.1981. In the above mentioned circumstances, it is

contendedonbehalfoftheappellantsthatthetestimonyofPW7

cannotbereadinevidenceu/s.33oftheEvidenceAct.

Inthesaidcase,itisheldasunder:

10. But, in our opinion, in the circumstances of the

presentcase,recoursetothesaidsectionisnotnecessaryto

giverelevancytothetestimonyofMst.Gangadevi((P.W.7)

asweshall presentlyshow. NodecisionoftheSupreme

CourtorthisCourtonthispointhasbeenbroughttoour

notice. The rule contained in the section is an

administrativeexpedientfordoingjusticebetweenlitigants

inaparticularsituation. Thecourtrequiresalitigantto

...52/


furnish evidence of the primary grade if it is within his

powertodoso. Solong,therefore,astheproponentcan

reasonably be required to cause a witness to repeat his

evidence regarding admissible facts given on a former

occasion the Court insists that the witness himself be

produce.Inotherwords,primaryevidenceisinsistedupon

untilasatisfactorynecessityforofferingsecondaryevidence

ismadeout.Whentheproponentsnecessityforproducing

evidence of secondary grade is established, the right to

submititisrecognisedbytheCourtsolongastheoriginal

evidence is attainable, evidence which is merely

substitutionary in its nature cannot be received. The

section states the circumstances and conditions under

whichsecondaryevidenceoforaltestimonymaybegiven.

Under those circumstances and conditions, the section

makesrelevanttheevidencealreadygivenbyaperson(i)

in a prior judicial proceeding or before any person

authorisedbylawtotakeitor(ii)atanearlierstageofthe

samejudicialproceeding.Thatistosay,ifapartywantsto

givetheevidenceofthesameperson(i)inasubsequent

judicial proceeding or (ii) at a subsequent stage of the

proceeding as the case may be, his evidence already

recorded earlier can be considered and he need not be

examinedinthesubsequent judicialproceedingoratthe

subsequent stage of the same judicial proceeding as the

casemaybeifthecircumstancesandconditionsmentioned

inthesectionarefulfilled. Thesectioncontemplates(i)a

...53/


subsequentjudicialproceedinginwhichthatpersonhasto

beexaminedasawitnessor(ii)subsequentstageatwhich

thatpersonhastobeexaminedasawitnessinthesame

judicialproceedingasthecasemaybe.Inthepresentcase,

there is noquestionof a subsequent judicial proceeding.

Here,thequestionis whether, inthesessionstrial, there

wasanystageatwhichitwasnecessaryfortheprosecution

to give evidence of Mst. Gangadevi (P.W.7) again. Her

evidencehadalreadybeenrecordedatthetrialon711981

underS.231oftheCr.P.C.1973readwithS.137ofthe

EvidenceActandtherewasnosubsequentstageforgiving

herevidence.Astherewasnosubsequentstageforgiving

herevidence,therewasnooccasionforinvokingS.33of

the Evidence Act for giving relevancy to her evidence

recordedon711981. Therelevancywasneverlostbyit

asitwastheevidenceofprimarygradegivenatthetrial.

S.33abidstatesthecircumstancesunderwhichsecondary

evidenceoforaltestimonymaybegiven.Whenevidenceof

primarygradehasbeenadduced,thereisnooccasionto

invokeorresorttothatsection.

11. Thefact,however,remainsthattheappellantswere

deprivedoftheopportunitytofurthercrossexamineMst.

Gangadevi(P.W.7)inthelightofherearlierstatementdt.

25121979(Ex.D5)recordedbytheExecutiveMagistrate

SanskarPande(D.W.2). Thatopportunitywasdirectedto

be given to them vide order dated 2021981 in the

...54/


criminal revisionreferred to in para No. 7 above. That

statement(Ex.D5)couldbemadeuseofbytheappellants

onlyforcontradictingherunderS.145oftheEvidenceAct.

It has, therefore, to be examined as to how far the

appellants are adversely affected or prejudiced thereby.

Reference to her testimony becomes necessary at this

stage.

88. Ihavegonethroughthecitedcaseandwithduerespect,I

findthatthefactsinthecaseof Ramvilasandothersv/s.Stateof

Maharashtra(citedsupra)arenotapplicabletothefactsofthecasein

hand.Inourcase,theevidencewasrecordedafresh,afterframingthe

chargeu/s.304II of theIPCaftercommittal. ComplainantRavindra

Patilisexpired. Hehasstatedthefactsinhisevidencebeforetheld.

MetropolitanMagistrateastohowtheaccidenttookplace.Thosefacts

wouldbethesameforthechargeu/s.304IIoftheIPC.Inviewofthe

ingredientsofSection33oftheIndianEvidenceActandinviewofthe

judgmentincaseof 1881IndianLawReporter and TheStateV/s.

Suraj Bali & Ors. (cited supra), the evidence of Ravindra Patil is

relevant, andadmitted and is taken on record u/s.33 of the Indian

EvidenceActinthecaseinhand.Astowhatvalueshouldattachtothe

saidevidenceistobediscussedlateron.

89. Theld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlyarguedthatthe

essentialconditionsofSec.33arenotfulfilledbytheprosecution.Itis

contendedthatthechargeandnatureoftheoffenceinboththetrials

aredifferent. TheingredientsofSec.304Aand304IIoftheIndian

...55/


Penal Code are dramatically opposite in respect of mens rea. The

offenceu/s.304ArequiresanactofomissionwhileSec.304IIrequires

anactofcommission.Itisalsoarguedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethat

theaccuseddidnotgetproperopportunityforcrossexaminationwith

referencetothechargeorissues.

90. Ld.AdvocateMr.Shivadevehementlysubmittedthatinthe

earliertrialtheaccusedwasfacingthelightercharge.Sec.304Aofthe

IPCpunishablewithtwoyearsorfine. Accordingtold.AdvocateMr.

Shivade, the crossexamination is always permitted to the extendof

charge and accused is not supposed to anticipate all the potential

charges and crossexamined accordingly. The earlier evidence was

recordedintheabsenceoftheaccused.AccordingtoMr.Shivade,the

accused is now facing a grave charge of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder, punishment provided upto 10 years or fine.

RavindraPatilhasnotbeencrossexaminedinthiscase.Itiscontended

that the evidence of Patil was tendered at the fag end. Further

according to Mr. Shivade, issues involved in both the cases are not

substantiallythesame.

91. Theld.Advocatefurthercontendedthattheprovisionsof

Section33ofIndianEvidenceActarenotcompliedwithinthiscase,

becausetheaccusedinthefirstproceedinghadnorightoropportunity

tocrossexaminePatilinrelationtooffenceofSection304,PartIIasthe

earlier trial was only for Section 304A and other lesser charges.

Therefore,eveniftheSessionsCourttrialisbetweenthesameparties

recoursecannotbetakentoSection33.

...56/


92. Furtheritisarguedbyld.AdvocateMr.Shivadethatthe

questionandissueintheMagisterialtrialandtheSessionsCourttrial

are not substantially the same because the question of intention or

knowledge of the accused in relation to the act done by him was

completelyirrelevantinthetrialu/s.304Awhiletheyareessentialin

Sec.304II of the IPC. According to Mr. Shivade, there is always

substantial differencebetweentheactcausingthedeathandtheact

causingtheinjury. AccordingtoMr.Shivade,inthepresentcase,the

caseoftheaccusedisthathewasnotdriving.FurtheraccordingtoMr.

ShivadeitisalsonecessarytonotetheprovisionsofSection304Iwhich

requiredthattheactcausingdeathisdonewiththeintentionofcausing

deathorcausingsuchbodilyinjuriesasislikelytocausedeath.PartII

ofSec.304alsocontemplatesanactdonewhichresultsindeathofthe

personwiththeknowledgethatsuchactislikelytocausedeath,but

withoutanyintentiontocausedeathorsuchbodilyinjuryislikelyto

cause death. According to Mr. Shivade, therefore, all this is not

requiredtoprove,ifthepersonistriedu/s.304AoftheIPCwhetherhe

hadintentionornot,whetherhehadanyknowledgeornot. Hence,

accordingtoMr.Shivade,offencesu/s.304Aand304IIaredifferent

andarenotsubstantiallythesame. Section304Aisanindependent

charge,itisnotlesseroffencethanSection304IIoftheIPC. Hence,

accordingtoMr.Shivade,theevidenceofPatilcannotbeheldrelevant

andreadinSessionsCourttrial. ItiscontendedthattheMagisterial

trialand,aftercommittal,aSessionstrialisnotalaterstageofthesame

judicial proceeding and therefore, Sec.33of Evidence Act cannot be

invoked. According to Mr. Shivade, the accused is deprived of

substantialrighttocrossexaminePatil.

...57/


93. Iamafraidtoacceptthecontentionsofld.AdvocateMr.

Shivade. Asdiscussedabovebyme, the factsare toberebutted in

crossexamination.Thecomplaina

Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

Documents

Transcript of Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

SIR SYED AHMAD KHAN's RESPONSE TO ORIENTALISTS … · Syed Ahmad Khan's Response to Orientalists Allegations on Islam. The present work is an attempt to discuss these efforts and

Khan’s Fire Fresh Kitchen Menu...Khan's Teriyaki Chicken Khan's Chicken Beef Ribeye Shrimp $13.50 Fried Rice Steamed Rice Noodles Extra Protein Chicken $2.50 Ribeye $3.00 Shrimp

PTI's clarification about Chairman Imran Khan's Tax returns

Salman Posting

Salman Shahraiar

Salman Rushdie - news.iitgn.ac.innews.iitgn.ac.in/wp/.../01/Salman-Rushdie-Author-of... · Verses. Salman Rushdie Salman Rushdie is a British-Indian novelist best known for the novels

A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Wal-Mart: Out of Business or Under New ...

The Il-Khan's Wife

Dr. Ashfaque Hassan Khan's latest articles 2013-14

Prof.kalim Khan's Notes

Salman Salt

Shah rukh khan's kolkata night riders (kkr & srk)

Salman Khan.doc123456

Salman Project

HomeBusinessEconomy BUSINESS ... governance... · Salman Khan's wedding gift to Arpita: A terrace flat worth Rs 16 cr TECHNOLOGY Nokia Lumia 830 review: Great camera but overpriced

Hassan Mustafa Khan's Presentation for World Trade Center

1958 69; ayub khan's regime

A Rational Rebuttal of Mr. Zafar Iqbal Khan's Criticism

Khan Academy - Khan's Story (video) Khan Academy - Khan's Story (video)

Syed salman