RAMESH S/O. VITHOBA CHINCHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38002


                                                                             82.18revn
                                                     (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      916 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 82 OF 2018

                                RAMESH S/O. VITHOBA CHINCHOLE
                                            VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                    …..
                 Mr V. M. Maney, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr C. V. Bhadane, APP for Respondent/State
                                                …..
                                         CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                               DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
                 P. C. :


                 1.           Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP

                 for respondent/State.     With their consent this criminal revision

                 application is taken up for final disposal.


                 2.           Mr Maney, learned Advocate for the applicant states that

                 the applicant/accused is being prosecuted for offence under Sections

                 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The said offences came to be

                 registered in pursuance of the report lodged by PW-1/Ravi Vishwanath

                 Ambhure alleging therein that, on 30/06/2013, at about 11.00 a.m.,he

                 alongwith his younger brother Vishal, mother Savita and Aunt

                 Subhadrabai were on their way towards their agricultural field. They

                 ware walking on the left side of the road and when they came near to

                 Sai Bar, one white Swift car bearing No. MH-30-P-3311 came in high
                                                              82.18revn
                                 (2)

speed from Bori and gave dash to Ravi from his backside. He fell

down on the road and sustained injuries on his back of right side, on

right shoulder, elbow and left wrist. The said car also dashed to his

mother and she also sustained injuries to her left foot. After giving

dash, the car did not stop at the spot of occurrence. Injured Ravi was

brought to Civil Hospital at Bori and Police recorded the statement of

injured Ravi at Hospital. On the said report, Crime No.85/2013 came

to be registered with Police Station, Bori.     After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the present

applicant.

3.           Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jintur, after

recording evidence of four witnesses, namely, PW-1/ Ravi Vishwanath

Ambhure, who is injured complainant; PW-2/Vishal, brother of

complainant Ravi; PW-3- Satish Vaijnath Kulkarni, who is the car

owner of offending vehicle and PW-4/Investigating Officer, passed the

impugned order dated 26/06/2015 in SCC No.72/2014, thereby

convicting applicant for the offence punishable under Section 279 of

Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer three months rigorous

imprisonment. The applicant/accused was further convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.
                                                              82.18revn
                                  (3)


4.          Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order,

applicant had preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge-1, Parbhani vide Criminal Appeal No.68/2015.            Learned

Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the Advocates for the

respective parties, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the

judgment and order of conviction vide order dated 22/02/2018. Hence,

applicant has approached this Court by filing the present revision

application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.


5.          Mr Maney, learned Advocate for the applicant submits

that both the Subordinate Courts have committed a grave error in law

by passing the impugned orders. According to him, there was no

evidence before the Subordinate Courts to show that the present

applicant was driving the said offending vehicle at the time of alleged

incident. According to him, the prosecution has failed to prove before

the Subordinate Courts that, at the time of incident, the present

applicant was driving the offending vehicle. He then submits that the

applicant came to be prosecuted merely on the basis of statement of

PW-3 Satish Kulkarni, who is the owner of offending car, that the said

car was being driven by the present applicant. However, fact remains

that the present applicant was not identified by any of the witnesses
                                                                82.18revn
                                   (4)

and there is no evidence to show that at the relevant time, the applicant

was driving the offending vehicle. PW-3/Satish Kulkarni who is the

car owner has turned hostile.


6.          After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective

parties, and perusing the evidence on record, it is brought to the notice

of this Court that present applicant was convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code on the

sole assumption that, he might have been driving the offending vehicle

at the time of incident. The prosecution has not brought any evidence

to suggest that, at the relevant point of time, applicant was in fact

driving the said offending vehicle.      No witness has identified the

applicant nor Investigating Officer conduced the test identification

parade.


7.          In that view of the matter, conviction of the applicant

under Section 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.

Learned Subordinate Courts have committed a grave error, thereby

convicting the applicant, without establishing the fact that at the

relevant time, he was driving the offending vehicle. Thus, in my

opinion, the impugned judgment and orders are liable to be set aside.

Hence, I pass the following order :-
                                                                  82.18revn
                                   (5)




                                ORDER

(I)    This criminal revision application is allowed.


(II)   The judgment and order dated 22/02/2018, passed by the learned

Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal

No.68/2015, thereby confirming the judgment and order dated

26/06/2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Jintur in SCC No.72/2014, is hereby quashed and set aside. The

applicant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.


(III) The bail bonds of applicant, if any, shall stand cancelled.


(IV) Record be sent to the Trial Court.




                                     [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk