HARIBHAU S/O. DEVICHAND GARUTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:42954


                                                                              323.17revn
                                                   (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      18 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 323 OF 2017

                              HARIBHAU S/O. DEVICHAND GARUTE
                                           VERSUS
                               1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                   2. NANDU SONAJI MAGARE
                                                  …..
                 Mr Abhishek Nagode, Advocate h/f Mr D. G. Nagode, Advocate for
                 Applicant
                 Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent No.1/State
                 Ms Smita R. Kasture, Advocate (appointed) for Respondent No.2
                                                …..

                                           CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                              DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.          Heard Mr Nagode, learned Advocate for the applicant,

                 learned APP Mr Bhadane for respondent No.1/State and Ms Kasture,

                 learned Advocate for respondent No.2.


                 2.          The applicant is challenging the impugned judgment and

                 order dated 27/10/2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

                 Class (JMFC), Court No.4, Paithan. Vide the said judgment and order,

                 the learned JMFC acquitted respondent No.2/accused of offence

                 punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) and 338 of the Indian Penal

                 Code.
                                                              323.17revn
                                  (2)

3           Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

impugned judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC is illegal

and is at not sustainable. He further submits that there are in all

sixteen witnesses, however, the prosecution has examined only three

witnesses and no efforts were made to examine eye witnesses,

resulting into acquittal of respondent No.2. He then submits that the

learned JMFC ought to have considered the aspect that respondent

No.2 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in

drunken condition and given dash to the motorcycle of the son of

applicant, which resulted into his death.     He further submits that,

despite availability of sufficient material on record, the learned Trial

Court erroneously acquitted respondent No.2. He, therefore, submits

that instant revision application may be allowed thereby quashing and

setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned JMFC.


4.          Per contra, learned Advocate Ms Kasture for respondent

No.2/accused vehemently opposes the present revision application.

She states that learned JMFC, after considering the evidence brought

before him by the prosecution, and after hearing the learned Advocates

for the respective parties before him, has rightly acquitted respondent

No.2/accused. According to her, the prosecution has failed to prove

that, on 29/01/2007 at about 22:40 hours on Paithan- Aurangabad road,
                                                                  323.17revn
                                   (3)

respondent No.2 was driving a Jeep bearing No.MH-12-JA-892 on a

public way in a rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger human life

or cause hurt or injury to any person. She then submits that the

prosecution has also failed to prove that respondent No.2 drove the

said Jeep in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing death of the

applicant’s son, namely, Parmeshwar.         She further submits that,

although the prosecution examined six witnesses, none of them stated

that respondent No.2/accused was responsible for the fatal accident,

resulting in the death of son of the applicant. She, therefore, submits

that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC is

correct and proper, and requires no interference of this Court. She,

therefore, prays for dismissal of present revision application.


5.             Learned APP for the respondent No.1/State supports the

case of the applicant and prays for allowing the present revision

application.


6.             After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective

parties and after perusing of the impugned judgment and order passed

by the learned JMFC, it is found that respondent/accused was being

prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 337,

338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of trial, the
                                                            323.17revn
                                    (4)

prosecution had examined six witnesses.         Learned Trial Court

considered the evidence of PW-4 to PW-6 and on the basis of their

testimonies, observed that the evidence brought by the prosecution is

not sufficient to prove the guilt of respondent No.2/accused for

commission of alleged offences. The prosecution has also failed to

suggest that the respondent No.2 caused the death of son of applicant.

After going through the order, I found that no case is made out for

entertaining the instant revision application. Moreover, the impugned

judgment and order is passed on 27/10/2017. The incident is of the

year 2007. Now, it would not be appropriate to upset the finding of

acquittal given by the learned Trial Court, who has considered the

evidence in a proper perspective.


7.          In that view of the matter, no case is made out by the

applicant and this matter deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this

criminal revision application is dismissed.

8.          Fees of learned Advocate appointed to represent

respondent No.2 is to be paid through the High Court Legal Services

Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, as per Rules.



                                      [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk