- Case
- PRESENJEET MANABENDRA SEN v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Motor Vehicles Act, Indian Evidence Act.
Facts: The applicant, Mr. Presenjeet Manabendra Sen, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rash driving and causing death by negligence, respectively, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The conviction stemmed from an incident on 17.03.2018, where a car allegedly driven by the applicant hit a bicycle, resulting in the death of Bachhalal Pal. The applicant appealed to the Sessions Judge, Pune, who upheld the conviction. The applicant then filed a Criminal Revision Application (CRA) before the Bombay High Court challenging these judgments. The applicant's defense was that he had hired the car and was not driving at the time of the accident, and an unknown driver was responsible.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the Bombay High Court as a Criminal Revision Application challenging the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court (JMFC) and the Sessions Court, which had convicted the applicant under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC.
Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was driving the car rashly and negligently, causing the accident and the death of Bachhalal Pal, and whether the lower courts erred in convicting the applicant based on the available evidence.
Holding: The Bombay High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, quashing the judgments of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court, and set aside the applicant's conviction and sentence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was driving the car at the time of the accident.
Reasoning: The Court found several inconsistencies and weaknesses in the prosecution's case. The sole eye-witness, PW-3 (Ramsaware Pal), provided contradictory statements. PW-5 (Uttara Rashinkar), a co-passenger, testified that the applicant was not driving and that the driver ran away after the accident. The Investigating Officer did not adequately investigate who was driving the car, especially given that it was a hired car. The RTO report indicated the car had a speed governor and suffered only minor damage, contradicting the claim of rash driving. The Court also noted the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of independent witnesses. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the applicant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entitling him to the benefit of the doubt. The Court also considered the aspect of contributory negligence, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Prem Lal Anand & Ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar & Ors., noting that the evidence suggested the bicycle collided with the car from the left side, not from behind.
