Download - Salman Khan's Trial Court Judgment

Transcript
  • 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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..3.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..4.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..5.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..6.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..7.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..8.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..9.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..10.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..11.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..12.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..13.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..14.. Judgment

    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.

    PW15Alok@ChikkiSharadPandey(Exh.73)

    KnownaccusedanddutyofthecarwaspaidbychequebyfatherofSalmanKhan.

    PW16GurucharanAbnashiramMalhotra(Exh.77)

    InsuranceAgent

    PW17MarkMarshalD'Souza(Exh.78)

    Worked as a Counter clerk in AmericanLaundrysince1988,hadseenSalmanKhan

    ...15/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..15.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..16.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..17.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..18.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..19.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..20.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..21.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..22.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..23.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..24.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..25.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..26.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..27.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..28.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..29.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..30.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..31.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..32.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..33.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..34.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..35.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..36.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..37.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..38.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..39.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..40.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..41.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..42.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..43.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..44.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..45.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..46.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..47.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..48.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..49.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..50.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..51.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..52.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..53.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..54.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..55.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..56.. Judgment

    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/

  • SessionsCaseNo.240/2013 ..57.. Judgment

    93. Iamafraidtoacceptthecontentionsofld.AdvocateMr.

    Shivade. Asdiscussedabovebyme, the factsare toberebutted in

    crossexamination.Thecomplaina