The Bombay High Court in the case State of Maharashtra v. Kuldeep Subhash Pawar observed and has upheld that the acquittal of man from charge of culpable homicide for causing death of a cyclist and bullock while driving on the ground that the that the direction of path of the bullock cart and the spot it was lying after the collision, as the same cannot be ascertained from the evidence.
The bench headed by Justice SM Modak in the case observed and has added that a map of the scene should have been prepared by the investigating officer and the trial court should have questioned the witnesses in order to record and to clarify correct direction of the vehicles.
In the present case, the complainant was driving his bullock cart and man was driving Tata Sumo Jeep on a public Road and that the and there being another person who was driving a bicycle. It has also been stated that as per the bullock cart driver, the Tata Sumo driver dashed to the bullock cart and the bicycle which being at a very high speed.
Further, the Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted him of offences stated under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), section 279 (rash driving), section 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or the personal safety of others), section 338 (wherein causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or the personal safety of others) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also section134 (duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence the present appeal made by the State.
The court in the case also noted that the opposite direction was given by the two witnesses on which the bullock cart was travelling. Thus, as per one witness it has been stated that the cart was going from North to South and it has also been testified by another witness that it was going from South to North and there being no confusion about location of the bullock cart as well. The court stated that there being discrepancy as to where the bullock cart was lying between the spot panchnama and by the testimony of a witness.
It ahs also been clarified by the Trial Court that the directions by putting questions to the witnesses.
Accordingly, the court while considering the facts of the case found no such evidence to corroborate the version being given by the complainant. Therefore, it has been stated by the complainant that the Tata Sumo came speedily, the court has to appreciate on the basis of our other material as well.
