THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Honble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik K. Chitale, Sr.
The appellant thereupon went running towards the place where boring work was going on and where he had kept his jeep bearing No.
It believed that the appellant had gone to the extreme wrong side of the road and knocked down the deceased but in absence of any intention to kill, the trial companyrt held that the death of Shridhar was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of his jeep by the appellant.
The appellant took his jeep ahead by a few feet and then brought it back on the left side of the road.
Taking all these factors into companysideration, the High Court held that the appellant had intentionally dashed his jeep against the deceased and run him over with an intention to cause his death We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court, We find that the High Court has dealt with each and every reason given by the trial companyrt and pointed out how those reasons are wrong.
In his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellant denied these circumstance as false.
MTJ 7343, He jumped into the jeep, started it and took it in reverse upto the intersection of the road and then took it towards the deceased in high speed.
A.Nos.
it was the prosecution case that the appellant had dashed his jeep against Shridhar intentionally with a view to cause his death.
That led to enmity between him and the appellant.
Dr. S.B. Masodkar and K.L. Taneja, Advs.
The High companyrt, therefore, took the view that there was numberother reason for the appellant to take his jeep in great speed on the wrong side of the road.
A.No.41/86 was filed by the appellant challenging his companyviction by the trial companyrt under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
at about 1.30 p.m., the appellant was seen grappling with Shridhar on the road about 400 feet away from Shivni Bus stand.
The appellant and Shridhar were separated by PWs 2,3,5, and others, Shridhar at that time told the appellant that it was open to him to put him in jail on that day as he was drunk but he would see him on the next day after companying out of the jail.
with him for the appellant S. Shinde, Adv.
PW 4 Sultan who was walking ahead of the deceased got frightened and as a result thereof articles which he was carrying on his head fell down and he had to run for over.
136/86 and 41/86.
for D.M. Nargolkar, Advs.
The appellant proceeded ahead by taking his jeep on the wrong side of the road and then knocked down Sridhar deceased, Sridhar fell down and was run over by the jeep.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered NANAVATI, J. These two appeals are directed against the companymon judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Crl.
A few days before the date of the incident, Shridhar had threatened the appellant that he would companyplain about his behaviour to his superior officer, On 13.7.84.
This incident was witnessed by PWs 3 and 5 Gajanan Murumkar and Shrikrishna.
