SUNIL MOHAN SANAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:44218




                                                    -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      932 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2019

                                        SUNIL MOHAN SANAP
                                               VERSUS
                                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

              Mr.Uddhav Daund h/f Mr.S.B.Rajebhosale, Advocate for the Applicant.
              Mrs.B.B.Gunjal, APP for the Respondent/State.

                                    ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

                                          DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :


              1.             Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the

              learned APP for the Respondent/State.



              2.             The Applicant is challenging the order dated 07.12.2019

              passed in Cri.Appeal No.30/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed,

              wherein      the    order    dated   24.04.2018   passed   by   the   learned

              J.M.F.C.Aashti, Dist.Beed in SCC No.143/2012 thereby convicting the

              Applicant u/s 279 and 304-A of the IPC, came to be maintained.           It is

              case of the prosecution that on 05.02.2012 at about 9.25              PM, the

              deceased, who was riding a motorcycle was hit by one pick up vehicle



              khs/Sept.2026/374
                                   -2-

bearing vehicle No.MH-16-AE-2879, which was alleged to be driven by

the present Applicant.     In the said accident, the deceased died on the

spot.      In pursuance to the said incident, FIR No.19/2012 for the

offence punishable under Section 279, 304-A and 427 of the IPC came

to be registered against the Applicant.



3.             After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed and

the Applicant came to be prosecuted as per the charge framed against

him. The Prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses. After recording

the oral evidence of all the witnesses, the learned J.M.F.C. was pleased

to convict the Applicant for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304-A of

the IPC vide its order dated 24.04.2018.     The learned Magistrate, vide

the aforesaid conviction order, directed the Applicant/accused to suffer

SI for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- I.d. to suffer SI of 5 days

u/s 279 of the IPC and also directed to suffer SI for one year and to pay

fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer SI of 10 days u/s 304 A of the IPC.



4.             Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction order, the

Applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No.30/2018 before the learned

Sessions Judge, Beed.      After hearing the learned Advocates for the


khs/Sept.2026/374
                                    -3-

parties, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal vide impugned

judgment dated 07.12.2019 thereby maintaining the conviction order

passed by the learned Magistrate.



5.             Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant. According

to him, both the learned Sub-ordinate Courts below have failed to

consider the evidence in proper perespective.       The evidence recorded

by the prosecution is at all not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that it

is the Applicant, who is responsible for the death of the deceased and

more particularly that he was driving the vehicle in such a manner that

it has caused death of the deceased. He further submitted that the

prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P.W.No.1 Ashok Hambarde,

who alleged to have witnessed the incident.       He submits that that the

said witness has specifically stated that there are certain speed breakers

just near the spot and as such, it is not possible to drive the vehicle in

high speed. He further submits that the said witness has merely stated

that the vehicle was driven in quite high speed. However, relying on the

same it cannot be presumed that the Applicant/Accused was driving the

vehicle in rash and negligent manner.        Further he submits that the

evidence of P.W.No.2 Venkat Garje is also being sought to be relied by


khs/Sept.2026/374
                                   -4-

the prosecution, who was panch witness of the spot.          He further

submitted that the evidence of this panch witness is not enough to

arrive at a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent

manner.      He also further submitted that the spot panchanama alleged

to have been recorded prior to registration of crime.     He, therefore,

submits that there are many lacunas in the investigation and the

evidence of the witnesses therefore is not at all sufficient to prove the

crime against the Applicant beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore,

submits that the learned Sub Ordinate Courts have failed to appreciate

the evidence in proper perespective and committed grave error in law

and hence judgment passed by them is not sustainable in the eyes of

Law. He further submits that both the judgments passed by the learned

Sub ordinate Courts to be quashed and set aside and the

applicant/accused be acquitted in the instant crime.



6.             Per contra, the learned APP supported the judgments

passed by the Trial Court.   According to her, the evidence recorded by

the prosecution is sufficient enough to impose conviction upon the

Applicant. She submits that there is a direct evidence available in the

instant case and      relying on the same, the prosecution has fully


khs/Sept.2026/374
                                    -5-

established its case before the Trial Court.    The judgments passed by

the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are correct and proper

and requires no interference by this Court.



7.             After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on

going through the evidence brought before this Court, it is found that

the Applicant came to be convicted u/s 279, 304-A of the IPC.           To

convict the person u/s 279 of the IPC, it is incumbent upon the Trial

Court to record a finding that the Applicant was driving the vehicle

involved in crime in rash and negligent manner and such conduct

resulted into the death of the deceased.



8.             After perusing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it

has not been brought on record to establish the said conduct of the

Applicant. P.W.No.1 Ashok Hambarde, in his deposition has stated that

the Applicant was driving his vehicle in high speed.     However, by that

itself, it cannot be presumed, in absence of sufficient cogent evidence,

that the Applicant was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.

On going through all the evidence on record and after scrutinizing the

judgments passed by the learned Sub Ordinate Courts, it would not be


khs/Sept.2026/374
                                  -6-

appropriate to pass the order of conviction against the Applicant. The

learned Trial Courts, having failed to consider the evidence in proper

perspective, has committed grave error in the eyes of Law. Hence, the

conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, I

pass the following order :-

[a]    Criminal Revision Application stands allowed.

[b]    The judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the learned

J.M.F.C. Ashti, Dist.Beed in SCC No.143/2012 and judgment dated

07.12.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.30/2018 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Beed are quashed and set aside and the Applicant is

acquitted from all of the offences for which he is convicted by the

learned Sub Ordinate Courts.

[c]    His bail bond stands cancelled and the surety, if any, stands

discharged.

[d]    The fine amount, if any deposited, be refunded to the Applicant.

[e]    The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court.



                                      ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)




khs/Sept.2026/374