1981 INSC 0061
                                                State of Maharashtra

                                                           Vs

                                              Vijay Sadanand Shenoy

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 1975

                                    (A.D. Koshal, V.B. Eradi, R.B. Misra JJ)

                                                      30.01.1981

                                                     JUDGMENT

KOSHAL, J. ­

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay acquitting
the respondent of an offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code of which he had been
convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay and sentenced in
consequence to rigorous imprisonment for nine months as well as a fine of Rs. 2000, the sentence in
default of payment of fine being rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. In brief the prosecution case was to the effect that one Dhanpal who had crossed half the width of
a 50 feet wide road and had then become stationary in order to let the vehicular traffic pass before
he crossed over, was suddenly hit by the motor-cycle which the respondent was riding while trying
to overtake a bus. The result of the impact, according to the prosecution, was that Dhanpal was
dashed to the ground and was run over by the bus between which and the deceased there was a
distance of only 4 to 5 feet.

3. The facts found by the High Court are that the deceased suddenly took a step backward and it was
then that the fatal impact came about. The High Court had found further that in this situation, the
respondent was not to blame as he could well have by-passed both the bus and the deceased, had the
latter not taken the fatal erratic step.

4. After hearing Mr. Sachthey for the State at great length, we find ourselves completely in
agreement with the High Court in the view of the evidence that it has taken in a very well-reasoned
judgment. We are at one with it in holding that no rash or negligent act has been brought home to
the respondent. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

</html