Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: Judgment 1 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
C/S filed on : 18/05/2018
Registered on: 04/06/2018
Decided on : 26/11/2025
Duration : 07 Y 06 M 08 D
Exh. 20.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (F.C.)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.G.AGRAWAL)
C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
(C.N.R.No. MHMM19-005890-2018)
J U D G M E N T
(u/Sec. 355 of Cr.P.C.)
(a) The serial number of the case. : C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
(b) The date of the commission of
the offence.
: On 08/08/2018
(c) The name of the Informant. : The State (D.N.Nagar Police
Station in C. R. No. 512/2015)
(d) The name of the accused
person and his parentage and
residence;
: Naval K.Shrivastav,
Age : 83 Yrs,
R/o. Juhu Versova Link Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Sections 279, 337 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(f) The plea of the accused and
his examination.
: Accused pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order : Accused is convicted for the
offence p/u/s. 279, 337 of the
Indian Penal Code.
(h) The date of such order : 26/11/2025
(i) Brief statement of reasons : As recorded herein below.
-- 1 of 10 --
Judgment 2 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
Assistant Public Prosecutor : Shri. Shaikh.
Advocate for the accused : Shri. G.V.Karkera.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial for the offence punishable under
Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has
examined the victim and first informant Ashok Naringekar (PW1),
Panch witness Satyanarayan Gupta (PW2), IO Hanumant Waghmode
(PW3) and the medical officer Dr. Devidas Walke (PW4). The accused
came with the defence of total denial and false implication and has
summoned and examined as defence witness Sahebrao Ambapure P.C.
(110752 DW1) who was the SHO D.N.Nagar on the day of incident.
3. In the present matter the Ld. APP for State ahs submitted
that prosecution has proved the guilt of accused and he be convicted
accordingly. While the Ld. Advocate for the accused has filed written
notes of argument based upon his defence showing the circumstances at
the time of occurrence and supporting the defence that the accused was
not driving either rashly or negligently. Alongwith written notes of
argument he has cited the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court M/s.
Veeda Menezes V/s. Yusuf Khan and Another (1966 AIR 1773) wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition in
favour of accused holding that the act causing slight harm do for within
exception given u/Sec. 95 of IPC.
4. Upon going through testimonies on record it is undisputed
fact that the informant Ashok Naringekar was present on the spot as he
-- 2 of 10 --
Judgment 3 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
was returning home on his bike MH-02-CK-7891 through Juhu Versova
Link Road. It is also undisputed that the accused was present there on
the same road and was driving a motorcar i.e. black colour Chevrolet
bearing registration No. MH-04-PQ-2951. According to the informant
they both were at signal and after the green signal was switched on,
they moved forward and there was heavy traffic on the road. He has
also stated that the accused drove his car towards his side at that time
he attempted to stop him by lip talk and gestures by hand however, he
proceeded further and hit on the left calf. The accused then ran away
and was caught with the help of one traffic police. He was then treated
at hospital and subsequently lodged report.
5. While he was under cross-examination, he stated that the
accused had jumped the signal. He further stated that the left guard of
his bike was not damaged but, he received dash directly at his left calf
and he fell towards his right side. He also stated that 10-15 motorcycles
running ahead of him. He has also stated that no challan was made by
the traffic police against the accused for jumping the signal.
6. The informant is the sole eye witness examined by the
prosecution. Dr. Devidas Walke (PW4) has proved the MLC certificate
Exh.20 through his testimony which shows that he has found an
abrasion of size 1 X 1 cm on left leg of informant Ashok (PW1) at the
time of his examination on 08/08/2015. He admitted during cross-
examination that the exact location of injury on leg is not mentioned in
the MLC certificate. He admitted that said injury can be self inflicted.
7. The panch witness Satyanaran (PW2) has stated that in his
presence panchanama (Exh.17) of the place of occurrence located near
-- 3 of 10 --
Judgment 4 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
to the signal at JVPD circle, Andheri (W), Mumbai was carried out in his
presence at about 12.30 in the midnight in pursuance to an accident
case. During cross-examination he admitted that at the time of drawing
panchanama it was raining. He also admitted that he works as rickshaw
driver and severally attend police station on the call by police station.
8. The IO Hanumant Waghmode was night duty SHO on
08/08/2015 and he recorded the report (Exh.11) of informant Ashok
(PW1) in respect of his accident at JVPD circle, Andheri (W) by accused
who was driving black coloured Chevrolet car. He has futher stated that
he drew spot panchanama (Exh.17) and obtained MLC certificate in
respect of injuries of informant. He then arrested accused and
concluded investigation.
9. During cross-examination he was shown a google map but,
he was unable recognized that said map was of the location of place of
occurrence. He also stated that it was raining when he drew spot
panchanama. He also saw that informant had bleeding injury in the
accident and he also admitted that no damage was caused to either of
the vehicle involved in the accident.
10. The accused summoned Sahebrao Ambapure (DW1) who
was attached to D.N.Nagar P.S. as PC on 08/08/2015 in the cabin of
SHO with the IO. He was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State
and during cross-examination he admitted that he went with the IO at
the time of panchanama at the place of occurrence and he has also seen
injury at informant’s leg. Record shows that he was re-examined by
accused and during re-examination he has stated that road on which
-- 4 of 10 --
Judgment 5 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
the incident occurred is square in shape with the angle to the extent of
70% for crossing the road from the square.
11. From the notes of arguments, it could be seen that the
accused has mentioned that there was an argument in between accused
and informant and the informant being hurt by said argument had
lodged false report and inflicted self injury on his leg and therefore
there is no record of exact location where the injury had occurred, no
independent witnesses are examined, the sketch of place of occurrence
was not drawn and so on. It is also mentioned in the written notes of
argument that on that day there was heavy traffic moving slowly at
Karachi Society Junction and due to the turning angle the car of
accused possibly failed to completely cross the Link Road at JVPD circle
and was forced to stop due to sudden on rush of traffic from its right. As
the informant was riding two wheeler, he was unable to pass through by
the hault of vehicle of accused and he got irritated and regain to
gesticulate in anger and confronted accused by asking him to get out of
the car but, the accused being afraid did not get out. At that time the
complainant while lowering the stand to put the motorcycle on stand,
had calf grazing against the tip of the footrest of his own bike and later
on filed false report.
12. Whether the prosecution has been successful in proving the
guilt of accused has to be seen on the basis of evidence on record. As
stated above in this case, it is undisputed that the place of occurance is
near signal junction at Juhu Versova Link Road, karachi Society,
D.N.Nagar. It is undisputed that accused was present there and was
driving black coloured Chevrolet motorcar bearing No. MH-04-EQ-
2951. It is undisputed that the informant was driving motorbike bearing
-- 5 of 10 --
Judgment 6 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
No. MH-02-CK-7879. The spot of occurrence as described in the spot
panchnama (Exh.17) as Link Road and Juhu Versova Link Road
Junction which is located at distance of 10 meter from North-South
running Link Road with a divider and the place of occurrence. While
cross examining the panch witness Satyanarayan (PW2), he was not at
all inquired about the location of the place of occurrence. Only it was
suggested that it was raining and that he attends police station on call.
The IO who had drawn spot panchanama was also not cross-examined
about location of place of occurrence described in panchnama. He was
just confronted with google map but, the said map was not proved and
it is not a piece of evidence.
13. In written notes of argument the accused has strongly
made a ground of defence that the sketch map of the spot was not
drawn and the same if fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the
cross-examination of the panch witness and the IO nowhere shows that
the accused has disputed the genuineness of the location described in
panchanama. Even the accused has failed to bring on record material
evidence which would show that his rights are prejudiced as the sketch
map has not been drawn. No suggestion was put to the IO for not
drawing sketch map. Further, no questions were put to the IO to show
that the location of accused and informant and the formation of angle
of 70 degree which prevented the informant from crossing the signal
and was reason of altercation between informant and accused. As the
accused did not ever at any point of time during the course of hearing
raised the defence described in his written notes of argument, his
defence cannot be taken as probable. Infact he summoned a defence
who has visited the spot alongwith the IO and was present at the time
-- 6 of 10 --
Judgment 7 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
of the panchanama. Even said witness has not stated any particular
location of the vehicles of informant and accused and the facts which
resulted into the lodging of FIR. Moreover, he was also re-examined by
the accused but, his re-examination did not help the accused in bringing
his defence on record. Surprisingly, no suggestion was put to the
informant nor did he was ask about the location of the place of
occurrence and the alleged angle of 70 degree formed at the place of
occurrence. In absence of evidence on record, the arguments of the Ld.
Advocate for the accused cannot be appreciated and accepted.
14. Another defence of accused is that the exact location of
injury was not described in MLC certificate (Exh.20) however, the
suggestions given by the defence in support of his defence itself shows
that the accused do not dispute that informant was injured at his left
calf and therefore, the said could not be considered.
15. Another defence of accused is that no independent witness
has been examined is also not tenable as in the given circumstances of
incident happening during running traffic, it is hardly possible to find
eye witness who could be identified and his statement could be
recorded.
16. Considering the testimony of informant who has stated that
he and accused on their respective vehicles have stopped at the signal
and as signal started, the accused drove vehicle towards his side and hit
him at his left calf even though he tried to stop him by lip talk and
gestures. The informant was simply suggested that he sustained injury
while parking the vehicle on side stand but, he refused to admit the
-- 7 of 10 --
Judgment 8 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
suggestion. Moreover, considering the scenario which has come on
record that the location of place of occurrence which is situated near to
the signal post having traffic of vehicles, how could a person in a
running traffic can park his motorbike on side stand. The defence seems
to be improbable in view of the absence of material on record support
it.
17. While informant was under cross-examination he has stated
that the accused jumped the signal and that the accused was not
challaned for jumping the signal. The fact that he jumped the signal is
not proved as an omission or improvement. Therefore, the testimony of
informant cannot be taken as doubtful only because the accused was
not challaned for jumping the signal.
18. The informant is a public servant serving in Mumbai Police
having bukkle No. 24348. There is no material on record to show why
he would depose false against the accused. Even the accused has not
given any plausible explaination of this fact during his examination
u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. He has simply stated that he being staff of
D.N.Nagar P.S. lodged false report and deposed false and so also other
witnesses have deposed false. But, the explaination do not seem to be
convincing as the informant does not have any grudge against the
accused.
19. Thus, for the reasons noted above, I hold that the testimony
of the informant shows that accused who was driving his car adjacent to
the informant’s bike had come towards informant and dashed his left
calf despite neglecting the gestures to pause. Certainly driving motorcar
on road and neglecting the gestures of the vehicle running by its side to
-- 8 of 10 --
Judgment 9 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
prevent any mishappening amounts to negligent driving which is an
offence u/Sec. 279 of the IPC. Causing hurt during negligent driving is
an offence u/Sec. 337 of the IPC.
20. The accused in his written notes of argument has taken
plea that his case falls u/Se. 95 of the IPC. However, the provision
would attract only in case when an act causes slight harm that no
ordinary person would complain of such harm. The hurt caused to
informant described in MLC certificate (Exh.20) is an abrasion of 1 X 1
cm. It could not be taken as a slight harm. Apart from it, riding a vehicle
on public road in negligent manner is an offence for which the defence
u/Sec. 95 of IPC cannot be raised. The citation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court relied by the accused pertains to Section 223 of the IPC and the
facts of the case were all together different from the facts in the case in
hand. As such he is liable to be punished and I take a pause here to hear
the accused on the point of sentence.
21. Heard accused and Ld. Advocate for accused who prayed
for showing leniency as the accused is senior citizen. He has prayed to
give benefit of probation of Offenders Act to the accused as per law. On
the other hand Ld. APP for State prayed for imposing punishment as per
law.
22. Indeed the offence p/u/s. 279 of IPC is punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine which may
extends to Rs. 1,000/- rupees or both. So also the offence p/u/s. 337 of
IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months
or fine which may extends to Rs. 500/- rupees or both. The prayer to
release the accused on bond of good behaviour giving benefit of Section
-- 9 of 10 --
Judgment 10 C. C. No. 1610/PS/2018
3 of Probation of Offenders Act does not seems to be convincing me as
the offence committed by accused is against public at large. However, I
am convinced that considering the age of accused, sentencing him
behind the bars would be little harsh. Thus, In my opinion, he shall be
convicted and punished to suffer imprisonment till the rising of Court
and to pay fine. Thus, I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. Accused Naval K.Shrivastav is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section
255(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
(Rupees One Thousand Only) in default the accused to suffer simple
imprisonment of 1 (One) month.
2. He is also convicted of the offence punishable under
Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 255 (2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees
Five Hundred Only) in default the accused to suffer simple
imprisonment of 1 (One) month.
3. Copy of judgment be given to accused free of costs.
(S.G.Agrawal)
Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Date: 26/11/2025. 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 26/11/2025.
Transcribed on : 26/11/2025.
Signed on : 26/11/2025.
-- 10 of 10 --