DECCAN EDUCATION SOCIETY’S

SHRI NAVALMAL FIRODIA LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

MOOT COURT SOCIETY ORGANISES

________________________________
LOKMANYA TILAK NATIONAL APPELLATE

MOOT COURT COMPETITION.

(14th EDITION)

11th and 12th April, 2022.

________________________________
MOOT PROPOSITION
 This Criminal Appeal
Application filed by
Shri. R. A. Gaikwad
Advocate
U/Sec. 374 of Cr. P C.
on 27/05/2014 against
the order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate F C.
Bhor.

Application for certified copies was given on

___________ copies were delivered on __________
Considering the period of Obtaining the certified copies of Judgment/ order
numbered and it is within limitation. It is examined and ordered to be numbered
and registered on 28/05/2014.
sd/-xxx
Superintendent
District and Sessions Court,
Pune.

CRIMINAL APPEAL APPLICATION No. 20/2014

Presented on 27 May 2014 by Shri. R. A. Gaikwad

Advocate for
Appellant with
Application u/s. 389
sd/-xxx
District & Session Court,
Pune.
 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, PUNE.
AT PUNE.

Crim. Appeal No. 20/2014

Pramod Salunkhe }
Age: 29 years, Occu: Service }
R/o: Bhor, Tal. Bhor Appellant }
Appellant Dist: Pune
}
V/s,
State of Maharashtra } Respondent

Appeal U/s. 374 of Cr. PC. against the

Judgement and order passed by J. M. R
C. Bhor.
In S.C.C. No. 72014/2008 dated
11/05/2014, convicting appellant for the
punishable U/s. 279, 304(a) of I.P.C.

That, the appellant has been convicted by J. M. F C. Bhor. In S.C.C

No.72014/2008 on 11/05/2014 he is sentenced to suffer S.I for three months on
each count and a fine of Rs. 3000/in all. Being aggrieved by this or judgment
and order of L. C. the appellant begs to appeal to this Hon'ble Court on the
following grounds –
Grounds –
1. That, the judgment and order passed by J. M. F. C. Bhor is improper
and illegal and needs to quash and set aside.
2. That, the lower court has misinterpreted the evidence on record. That,
the L. C. has totally failed to appreciate the legal aspect of Criminal
rashness and negligence.
3. That the L. C. failed to consider that “giving a dash” by itself nowhere
indicates any negligence. A criminal negligence has to rule-out the
possibility of pure accident or error of judgment.
4. That the L. C. has further failed to appreciate the legal meaning of the
turn. “Causing of death” as such it is totally illegal to hold that accused
caused a death of the deceased Rohan. 6. That, the L. C. did not consider
that the evidence so called eye witness nowhere even suggested any
negligence or rashness.
5. That, the L C. should have considered that only witness, identifying the
accused I. e. P w 4 Narottam is a mere chance witness. He had no occasion
to notice and identity a motorcyclist.
6. That, another witness P W 5 Dattaraj only knows the accused. However,
he nowhere stated that accused was driving the motorcycle. Under such
circumstances, the benefit of doubt should have gone to the accused.
7. That, L. C. has given consideration only to the aspect of contradiction or
omissions. However, it failed to take into consideration the aspect of
inherent defects and absence of culpable evidence.
8. That, it was legally wrong for the L. C to hold that there was no negligence
of the deceased.
9. It is submitted that this being a criminal case, question of contributory
negligence was irrelevant. The L. C. should have independently considered
whether there was criminal negligence of the accused or not.
10.That, unfortunately, the judgment and verdict of the L. C. is based on
conjectures and surmises, rather than legal evidence.
11.That, the judgment and order to L C. is even otherwise without application
of judicial mind and thus, bad in law.
It is therefore prayed that, this appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted
of the offence. And for this act of kindness and
justice, the appellant shall ever pray.

Pune. Sd/-xxx
Date: 27/05/2014 Advocate for appellant
 S.C.C. No.72014/2008

FORM V – A

CHARGE SHEET / FINAL REPORT FORM

(According to IPC section 173)

Bench :- J.M.F.C. YAWAL, DIST. BHOR

1. Dist:- BHOR
Police station :- Yawal year – 2008

FIR No. :- 71/2008

Date :- 17/08/2008

2. Final report no.

Charge sheet :- 62/2008
3. Date :- 31/08/2008
4. Act :- IPC
Section :- 304(a), 279,337
5. Final report type :- charge sheet.
/charge sheet/ not charge sheeted for want of evidence /
FR True, undetected / FR true Untraced/ FR true offence abated/FR
unoccured.
Accused died: - charge sheet
6. If FR unoccured:- false / mistake of fact/ mistake of law / non
cognizable / civil nature
7. If charge sheet:- (original/ supplementary):-
8. Investigation officer name :- Baburao Sonawane
Rank :- Asst. Faujdar
9. A. complainant name :- Asst. Faujdar
Baburao Sonawane,
 Appointed- Yawal
police station, Yawal
B. Father’s name:- Trambak Chula Sonawane
10. List of accused sent in court
(if with absconding)

No. Name of Age Address Arrested Remand remark

accused date date
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Pramod 29 Sarswati 19/08/2008 11/09/2008
Salunke high
school,
Yawal

11. Particulars of witnesses to be examined:-

Sr.no Full name Age Occupation Address Type of

proof to be
presented.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Ajay 45 Garage Near Panch
Sapkale yrs Tarkeshwar
vidya mandir ,
yawal
2 Vikrant 28 Garage Malod taq. Panch
Sawale yrs Yawal
3 Vikas 47 Hotel Falaknagar Witness
Pardeshi yrs Yawal
 4 Aditya 35 Pantapri Falaknagar Witness
Mahajan yrs yawal
5 Narottam 30 Riksha Kandari gram Witness
Vichare yrs driver panchayat
Bhusawal
6 Dattaraj 27 …… Kandari gram Witness
Lohar yrs panchayat
Bhusawal
7 Jagdish 45 Business Virar nagar Witness
Patankar yrs ,yawal
8 Shashikant 40 Sadguru Deshmukhwada Vehicle
Kale yrs garage yawal investigation
mechanical witness
9 Baburao 47 Job Yawal pol. Investigation
Sonawane yrs Station officer
complainant
10 Kantabai 48 Homemaker Yawal Witness
Teviskar yrs mahajanwadi
11 Virendra 25 Labour Yawal Witness
Teviskar yrs mahajnwadi

Counterfeit seized
12- If FIR is false then according to IPC 182/211 the action to be take
should be mentioned :
13. result of laboratory analysis:-
 FORM :5C
Details of the accused person charge sheet
( use separate form for each accused)
1. Name :- Pramod Salunke
Investigated or what :- Yes]
2. Father’s name :- Bajirao Salunke
3. Birth date :- 29
4. Gender :- male
5. Nationality :- Indian
6. Circular date :-
Date of giving:-
Place of giving :-
7. Religion :- Hindu
8. Is it SC/ST :-
9. Occupation :- Job
10.Address :- R/O yawal Shivajinagar , taq. Yawal near sarswati
Highschool
Investigated or what :- yes

11.Provision criminal no.:-

12.Regular criminal no. (in known) :-
13.Date of arrest :- on 19/08/2008 around 15.15 pm
14.Date of release on bail :-
15.Date on which forwarded to court :- 19/08/2008
16.Under acts & sections :- IPC 304(a) , 279,337
17.Name of Bailer and address :-
18.Previous conviction with case reference
19.Status of the accused.:- in judicial custody
Bailed by police / bailed by court / judicial custody /
 Absconding / proclaimed offender
16. details of properties /articles/ documents recovered/ seized during
investigation and relied upon (separate list can be attached if
necessary.)
Sr.no. Property Estimated P.S. From Disposal
description value Property whom/Where
(Rs.) Register recovered or
no. seized
1 2 3 4 5 6
1

17. Brief facts of case :- ( add separate sheet if necessary )

The charge is :-
The above said crime is committed around the
location boundary of yawal fejpur road near footwall at the shevbhaji
hotel of Vikas Pardeshi near the furnace of pakoda frying on
16.08.2008 around 12.00 pm .
Complainant complain that on above date , time and
place accused Pramod Salunke , age -29 , R/O sarswati highschool, yawal
lose control of honda splender motor cycle bearing no. MH12KS3272 .
Accused drove the above said motorcycle in so rash and negligent
manner and gave dash to the furnace of hotel and due to which boiling
edible oil in kadhai and kadhai was fallen on chest, stomach, private parts
of Rohan Teviskar while he was frying pakodas and due to which he died
and thereby committed offence under IPC section 304(a) , 279,337.
18. Notice form under section 173:-
Implement date :-

Reason of no implementation
Acknowledgment received sign :-

Court C.C. No. :-

Court decision :-

Sign of Office in charge Sign of investigation officer

Sign/- XXX Sign /- XXX

Name :- V.G. Gaikwad Name :- Baburao Sonawane

Rank :- police inspector Rank : Asst. Faujdar

Yawal police station Yawal police station

 S.C.C. No. 72014/2008
Exb.No.7

Chapter XXI code of Criminal Procedure code (Act II of 74)

In the court of Shri A.M. Bhosale Judicial Magistrate
R C.Yawal.

1. Date of the Commission of the

Offence :- 16/08/2008
2. Date of the Complainant Report : 11/09/2008
3. Name of the complainant of report : The State
Vs.

4. Name of the Accused age and : Pramod

Residence : Salunke , age-29 years
R/o Shivaji Nagar,
Yawal
5. Particulars of the offence explained to the accused .
That on 16/08/2008 at about 12-00 hours.
On Yawal – Fazipur road , near the well near the hotel of
Vikas Pardeshi, you accused drove the motorcycle in you possession
bearing No MH12KS3272 and gave dash to the furnace of hotel and
caused death of Rohan Teviskar by your rash and negligent driving not
amounting culpable homicide by giving dash to furnace of hotel and due
to which boiling edible oil was fallen on the person of Rohan Teviskar
and due to which he died and thereby committed offence punishable u/s
304(a) of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
 Secondly on the same date , time and place you accused
drove the abovesaid motorcycle in so rash and negligent manner as to
endanger human life or personal safety of other or likely to cause hurt or
injury to any other and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 279 of
the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Lastly on the same date, time and place you accused caused
hurt to Rohan Teviskar by driving your motorcycle in rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and by giving
dash to furnace of the hotel and due to which boiling oil fall on the person pf
said Rohan Teviskar and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 337 of the
I.P.C. and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by
me for the above said offence.

Date: 05/0/2011 sd/-xxx

Judicial Magistrate EC.
Yawal.

6. Pleas of the accused

Ques 1: Have you understood the particulars of the offence now read
over and explained to you in vernaculars?
Ans: Yes.

Ques 2: Have you received the copies of the police Papers?

Ans Yes

Ques 3: Do you plead guilty?

Ans: I do not plead guilty.
Pramod Salunke
Particulars of the offence are now read over
and explained to the accused in vernaculars.

Date: 5/1/2011 sd/-xx

Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Yawal.
05-01-2011.
 Exb. No. 10
Sadguru Auto & Service Centre
Bajaj Authorised Sales and Service Centre
Near S.T. Stand, Yawal - 425 301
Dist. Bhor
Date: - 17-08-2008
To
Hon. Police Inspector
Yawal city police station
Yawal Tal. Yawal dist.
As per your appeal (Request application), A Hero Honda
(splender) numbered MH12KS3272 a motorcycle in the accident of motor
accident No.30/2008 has been technically inspected at Yawal police station.
Above said motorcycle is totally in a good condition. No damage has been done
to above said motorcycle. Above said Motorcycle is technically sound.
The above report is submitted after technical inspection of motorcycle.

M/s. Satguru Auto &

MWs. Satguru Auto Yawal,

Service Centre
proprietor

Near S. T. Stand
Admitted

Yawal, Dist: Bhor (M. S. )

sd/-xxx

(2014585) (913) 60111

Advocate for accused.
R &R as Exh. 10 in

S. C. C. No. 72014/2008

as admitted by accused
on 12-07-12
sd/-xxx
Judicial Mgistrate,
First Class
 Statement of witness No.1

I hereby make a solemn statement that ,

My name:- Ajay Sapkal
Age :- 50 yrs.
Occupation:- Motor cycle repair
Residence :- Yawal
Dist.
Chief examination

On 16/08/2008 police took my signature but didn’t

prepare panchnama in my presence. There is my signature on onsite
panchnama. Exhibit 14 has been given to it I don’t know the text.

Cross Examination of Hostile Witness has been done by

APP U/s. 155 of Evidence Act.

It is not true, police called me at fejpur road near

gurudatta pan shop and Vikas Padeshi showed me the location. The place of
furnace where oil spilled on kiln’s body and the place where accused dash the
furnace and Panchnama has been prepared of that and took my signature it’s not
true that I am giving false testimony.

Accused himself reused to take Cross Examination

No re-examination.

Date : 16-10-2013

Witness

Submission Accepted
Sign /-XXX
Sign /- XXX
Judicial Magistrate,

Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Yawal.

First Class, Yawal

 Exb. No 14
Yawal
Date 16-8-2008
Spot Panchnama
Panch 1:- Mr. Ajay Sapkal , age -45
Occupation – Garage
Address:- Tarkeshwar vidya mandir jawal , yawal.

Panch 2:- Mr. Vikrant Sawale , age -28

Occupation – Garage
Address:- Malod Tal. Yawal

Today we were called by assistance police Vichare of yawal

police station near the foot well of Yawal fejpur road and informed that the
witness at the scene of Yawal police station Motor Accident No. 30/2008, Vikas
Pardeshi is present showing this is where the incident took place and. After
seeing the situation we were informed to do panchnama so we are hereby testify
that Witness Vikas Pardeshi present in front of us, showed us the place of the
accident in front of panch. Looking at the condition of this place at the foot well
there is witness’s handcart of bhaji pohe shev chivda is parked. At 8 feet east to
the above said handcart an iron circular furnace appears to have 4 legs and the
furnace appears to be just turned off. It is seen that iron karahi is lying near
furnace. A metal sheet is lying near iron karahi which is used to cover furnace.
The stains of oil spilt in front of furnace has been seen. Above said furnace is of
height 1 feet. This is the situation at the scene.

At same scene on 16-8-2008 at 12 ‘o’ at the morning

Rohan Teviskar aged 60 living in Yawal has been frying pakodas. At the same
time driver Pramod Salunke was driving his hero Honda motorcycle numbered
as MH12KS3272 and dashed the furnace ,the karahi on furnace fallen down
and oil spilt over the body of Rohan Teviskar . due to the hot boiling oil his
hands, legs and chest part was injured. For above accident and the reason for
burning of the body of Rohan Teviskar only he is responsible, this happened
because he drove above said motorcycle with ignorance of upfront situation.
This is witness informing in front of panch. At the above situation motorcycle is
not being seen and police hasn’t seized anything from here.

Seeing directions of the above said scene there is hotel of

Lakshmindas Budhani at east, gurudatta pan centre is at west, foot well is in
north , at south there east west fejpur road .

The above said panchnama was given by us in front of panch is written

right. Panchnama started at 14.20 and ended at 15.15.

Witness

Sign /xxx

Yawal police panchnama signed

date 16-08-2008
1. Sign /- XXX
2. Sign /- XXX
 Statement of witness no 2

Deposition of witness No 2 for the

I hereby solemnly state that
My name :- Jagdish Patankar
Age :- 45 yrs
Occupation :- Hotel
Address :- Yawal
Chief examination Mr. A.P.P.
I have no idea about this accident. Nothing was
happened in front of my hotel in the year 2008. Police took my testimony.

Cross Examination been taken of Hostile Witness by

AAP U/s. 155 of Evidence Act.

This is not true, on 16-8-2008 at around 12 noon

accused Pramod gave dash to the furnace of frying pakodas and because of
which hot oil spilt on hand and legs of Rohan and he was injured. It is not true
that vehicle number was MH12KS3272 and all facts in my statement were
reported by me to the police. That it is true that after accident injured was taken
to the hospital and that I told this to the police. It is not true that after injured
died statement was taken on 25/8/2008. It is not true that police told on
22/08/2008 that he died and that I told about this to police. It is not true that I
am giving false testimony because I knew accused and I am trying to save him
because of good relation between us.

Mr. R.P Singh lawyer denied cross examination from accused.

No re examination

Date :- 23/01/2015
Witness

Submission Accepted
Sign /-XXX
Sign /- XXX
Judicial Magistrate,
Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Yawal.
First Class, Yawal
 Statement of witness no. 3
I hereby solemnly state that
My name – Kantabai Teviskar
Age :- 50
Occupation :- labour
Address / residence :- Yawal
Dist
Chief examination Mr. A.P.P.
The dead person was my husband and he used to work in hotel. He
died because oil spilt on his body. It has been 5-6 years since he died. I don’t
know how oil spilt on his body but there was injury on his hand and other body
due oil spilt.

Cross Examination has been taken of Hostile

witness by APP U/s. 155 of Evidence Act

It is true that I was not at home on 16/08/2008 and my husband was at work.
And he used to work on hotel of Vikas Pardeshi. It is true that oil spilt on my
husband’s body because accused gave a dash by his motorcycle. It is true that
my husband was taken to government hospital and after 7 days of that he died.
It is true that we have compromised with accused.

Mr. R.P. Singh lawyer took cross examination for accused

It is true that, I don’t know about this accident. And I don’t whose vehicle was
that and who was driving.

Date :- 23/01/2014

Witness
Submission Accepted
Sign /-XXX

Sign /- XXX
Judicial Magistrate,

Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Yawal.

First Class, Yawal

 S.C.C. NO. 72014/2008
Exb. No 19
Statement of witness no.4 by government
I hereby solemnly state that
My name :- Narottam Bahare
Age :- 40 yrs
Occupation:- Riksha driver
Address :- kandari
Dist :- Bhor
Chief examination: govt. lawyer Mr. Kharekar

This accident took place 5-6 years ago. Accident took place near bus stand. we
were having breakfast. Accident took place at Vikas Pardeshi’s hotel.
Motorcycle driver is present in court today. I don’t know his name. Motorcycle
driver gave dash to the furnace and due to that karahi felt on the person named
Rohan Teviskar. Rohan Teviskar was burnt because of hot oil in karahi. After
that he was taken to the hospital for treatment. Accused is present in court
today. I recognize his face.

Police noted my statement.

 Cross examination by accused lawyer Adv. R.P Singh: -

It is true that, there is so much rush at bus

stand. At the time of accident, no rush was there. Furnace was not on road it
was in side. It is not true that, foot well is part of shop. It is not true that there
are two parts of foot well the furnace was in first part of furnace and second par
was for customers seating area. It is not true that furnace was at downside of the
road at the time of accident. It is true that foot wells’ place broke due to
encroachment. It is true that shop was broke in encroachment. It is not true that
because the shop had broken the pakodas were frying with furnace on road.
Splender motor cycle gave a dash I don’t remember the number of that
motorcycle. It is true that, shop wasn’t built with walls it was on road.

It is not true that, accused gave dash. Accused was traveling from
yawal to fejpur. I don’t remember that I told police that accused was traveling
from Yawal to fejpur. I told police that vehicle was two wheeler. I didn’t tell
about splender. It is not true that, accident wasn’t happened and I am giving
false testimony.

No re examination

Date :- 02/07/2014

Submission Accepted
Sign /-XXX

Sign /- XXX
Judicial Magistrate,

Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Yawal.

First Class, Yawal

 S.C.C.No.720/2008

Exb No.20
Statement of witness no.4 by government

I hereby solemnly state that

My name : Dattaraj Lohar
Age :- 36 yrs
Occupation :- Blacksmith
Address :- Bhusawal
Dist :- Bhor
Chief examination : govt. lawyer Mr. Kharekar
This accident took place 5-6 years ago. Accident took place on hotel near bus
stand. It was Vikas Pardeshi hotel. Accused is present in court today. I know
him. He lost control of motorcycle and gave dash to the furnace and due to that
karahi felt on the person who was frying pakodas. He was burnt because of hot
oil in karahi. After that he was taken to the government hospital for treatment. I
gave my statement to police.

Cross examination by accused lawyer Adv. R.P Singh:-

It is true that, there is so much rush at bus stand. At the time of accident,
no rush was there. It is true there is panchayat samiti office in front of S.T.
stand. It true that there were encroached sugarcane saps. 3-4 sugarcane saps
were there. I don’t know that there is Anupak cold drinks shop aside of that. I
don’t know that aside of bus stand there were front porches built by agriculture
produce committee. It is true that at the time accident it wasn’t rainy season. I
don’t know that it was Shravan (spring) month at that time. I can understand
Marathi months. It is not true that I am giving false testimony.
 No re examination.

Date :- 02/07/2014

Submission accepted
Sign /-XXX

Sign /- XXX
Judicial Magistrate,

Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Yawal.

First Class, Yawal

 S.C.C.No. 72014/2008
Exb. No.21
Statement of witness no.6 by government

I hereby solemnly state that

My name : Baburao Sonawane
Age :- 83 yrs
Occupation :- Retired A.S.I.
Address :- Bhusawal
Dist :- Bhor
Chief examination: govt. lawyer Mr. Kharekar

Incident happened on 16-08-2008 at Yawal at foot well near

S.T. stand. const. Gangurde filed case of accident and gave investigation report
to me. I made spot panchnama front of 2 panch on 16/08/2008. There is
signature on panch and mine on that. It’s on Exhibit 14. From the statement of
Vikas Pardeshi evidence against accused is concluded. I filed complaint against
accused on 17-08-2008 by government. My signature is there on it. Exhibit 22
was given on that. Statement of witnesses were also noted. On 22/08/2008
statement of Vikas Pardeshi has been noted. After his death extra charges were
applied and after that charge sheet was files against the accused. It is concluded
in the investigation that due to dash given by motorcycle of accused to the oil
karahi and oil spilt on Vikas Pardeshi’s body while taking treatment for that he
died in Bhor civil hospital . Accused is present in court today.
 Cross examination by accused lawyer Adv. R.P Singh:-

It is true that, road passing by Yawal Stand is highway road. I can’t

tell that on the both side of road from road centre for the distance of 5 m no
construction or business is allowed. I can’t tell how far incident took place from
road center. I can’t tell that road is around 30 feet broad. I can’t tell that foot
well is at 10 feet from road centre. According to panchnama I don’t remember
the counting. I don’t know that foot well is removed while removing
encroachment. I can tell that because of highway there is no furnace or shop on
the side of road. I can’t tell that there was shop of pakodas next to the foot well.
I can’t tell the direct of the pakoda shop to the foot well. Agriculture produce
committee in west of road . I can’t tell the direction of foot well. It is true that
pakoda shop was in west. It is true that recheck was done due to soth-north
intermediate of road.
Sign/ –XXX
Judicial Magistrate

First Class,

Yawal
 Testimony resumes on witness oath: -

It is not true that accident wasn’t happened. The number of

vehicle that hit is MH12KS3272. I can’t tell that vehicle was owned by accused
or not. It is not true that accused wasn’t driving vehicle. It is not true that I am
giving false testimony.

Date: - 10/12/2014
Resubmission accepted
Sign /-XXX
Judicial Magistrate

First Class,

Yawal
 Exb. 22
Yawal Police station
Date 17-08-2008
Plaintiff

I am Baburao Sonawane Assistant faujdar I am giving it in written that I

am doing job the abovesaid place since 4 years .

On 16-08-2008 Rohan Teviskar gave me information while taking

treatment in yawal rural hospital that around 12 ‘o’ clock I was frying pakodas
at Vikas Pardeshi’s hotel near footwell at that time a motorcycle came and gave
dash to karahi because of that the abvesaid hot oil in karahi spilt on my both
hands and chest and thighs , waist its burnt because of that. I don’t know the
name of abovesaid motorcycle driver and number of the motorcycle. From this
information text police station official const. Gangurde of yawal police station
filed motor accident No. 30/2008 and gave further investigation of abovesaid
accident to us by order of seniors.

The witness Vikas Pardeshi of abovesaid accident resident

of yawal and by spot panchnama it is concluded that on date 16-08-2008 at
around 12 noon acussed Pramod A.K.A Chhotya Bajirao Salunkhe resident of
yawal has drove hero honda splander motorcycle in his possession numbered
MH12KS3272 in yawal city while passing fejpur road he gave a dash to the
pakoda frying furnace adjacent fejpur road near footwell there was Vikas
Pardeshis’ hotel of bhaji, shev , chivda due to that hot oil in karahi spilt on both
the hands, chest, stomach of Rohan Teviskar aged 60 , resident of yawal who
was frying pakodas in that hot oil his body got burnt .It is concluded that for his
injury and accident the abovesaid motorcycle driver who drove recklessly ,
haggardly is responsible. That’s why I have complaint against him under I.P.C.
section 270,227.
Gave this complaint in written.

Sign /-XXX
Date.17-08-2008

Assist. Faujdar
Yawal Police Station
 Exhibit No. 23
Case no . 70214/2008

Statement of accused under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure :

My name : Pramod Salunkhe

My age :- 29 yrs

Occupation :- college peon

Resident : Yawal

Q no.1: Did you hear the evidence by govt. side and did you understand it ?

ANS:- yes.

Q no. 2: In the statement of witness no.4 it is stated that at the day of incident he
was having breakfast near bus stand at that time accident happened at Vikas’s
hotel and you gave dash to he furnace by driving motorcycle. What do you want
to tell about this ?

ANS: Its false.

Q no. 3 It is given in their evidence that because of hot oil kadhai spilt on the
person named Rohan and he got burnt he was taken to the government hospital.
What do you want to tell about this ?

ANS : its false.

Q. No. 4 : Witness no 5 Dattaraj Lohar has testified that on the day of incident
the accused while driving the motorcyle gave dash to the furnace of the hotel of
Prakash because he lost the control over the motorcycle. Accordingly the
boiling oil spilled on the person of deceased and he was taken in the rural
hospital for medical treatment What do you want to tell about this ?

ANS :- Its false

Q. No 5 : witness no 3 Kantabai testified that on date 10-08-2008 his husband
was working on Vikas Pardeshi’s shotel and you drove motorcycle and gave
dash to the furnace because of that the oil in the kdhai spilt on him and he got
injured he was taken in the rural hospital for medical treatment What do you
want to tell about this ?

ANS :- Its false

Q no 6 Witness no 6 Baburao testified that he made panchnama in presence of

2 panch it is given on Exb. 12 What do you want to tell about this ?

ANS: Nothing

Q no . 7 Witness no 6 Baburao Trambak has given complaint on Exb 22 What

do you want to tell about this ?

ANS: Nothing

Qno 8 Do you want to give testimony on your oath ?

ANS : NO

Qno 9 Are the above witness testifying against you ?

ANS: don’t know

Qno 10 Do you want to examine witness in your defence ?

ANS : no

Qno 11 Do you want to tell anything regarding this case?

ANS : NO

Sign /- XXX
Sign /-
 Judicial magistrate first class
Signature of Accused

Above accused statement has taken in my presence and its is true by accused
saying and my listening.

Sign /- XXX
 Presented on 11-09-2008
Registered On 11-09-2008
Decided On: 11-05-2015
Exh. No. 26

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS AT BHOR.

[Presided over by Jayshri R Pulate]

Summary Criminal Case No. 72014 of 2008.

The State of Maharashtra
Through Ps.0 Police
Station, Yaal Dist: Pune Complainant
V/S
Pramod Chhorya Bajirao Salunkhe
AGE: 29 years, R/o Bhor
Tal. Bhor Dist- Pune Accused
(Shri Nitin Kharekar , Ld. APP for the prosecution)
(Shri R. P Singh, Ld. Advocate for the accused)

Offence Punishable U/s. 279, 304(a) ot IPC JUDGMENT

(Delivered on this 11 th day of May 2015)

1. The accused Pramod is charged for the offence punishable under

279, 304(a) of Indian Penal Code
2. In brief it is the case of prosecution that
On 16-08-2008 Rohan Sampat Teviskar (the deceased) has informed in
Yawai rural hospital that at about 12 pm while he was trying Pakodas in the
hotel of Praskash near the well (Pai Vihir), at that time one motorcycle rider
came and gave dash to the Kadai because of which the boiling oil from the
Kadai spilled on the chest, hands and waist and he sustained burn injuries. After
seven days of the occurrence of the incident, while under medical treatment, he
died, after preparing spot memo Exh. 14 P W 6 ASI Sonawane has lodged
complaint Exh. 22 against the accused.
3. My learned predecessor has recorded particulars of offence against
the accused vide Exh. 7 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
for trial.
4. Following points came up for determination, My findings along
with reasons thereon are given as under

POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does prosecution prove
thaton 16-08-2008 at about
12.00 p.m. On Bhor- Faizpur
road near the well, near the
hotel of Vikas Pardeshi the
accused drove the motorcycle
bearing No. MH12KS3272 in
rash and negligent manner as
to endanger human life or
personal safety
of others. Affirmative
2. Does prosecution prove
that on the said date, time and
place the accused gave dash to
the furnace
of hotel and caused death of Rohan
Sampat Baviskar by his rash and
negligent driving, not
amounting to culpable homicide
Affirmative
3. what order?
As per final Order

REASONS

5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the prosecution has examined
P W 1 Vijay the spot panch
P W 2 Jagdish Patankar the eye witness
P W 3 Kantabai Teviskar the wife of deceased
P W 4 Narottam Bahare the eye witness
P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar the eye witness
P W 6 ASI Baburao Sonawane the investigation officer

6. P w 1 Vijay, P w 2 Jagdish Patankar, P w 3 Kantabi Teviskar has not

supported the prosecution case.
Narottam Bahare has testified that on the day of incident he was taking
refreshment in the hotel of one Prakash. At that time the accused came there
on motorcycle and gave dash to the furnace because of which the boiling oil
spilled on the person of deceased and he sustained burn injuries. The
evidence of P W 4 Narottam Bahare indicates that afterwards the deceased
was taken in the rural hospital for medical treatment and has identified the
accused.

7. P w 5 Dattaraj Lohar has testified that on the day of incident the accused
while driving the motorcycle gave dash to the furnace of the hotel of Prakash
because he lost the control over the motorcycle.
Accordingly, the boiling oil spilled on the person of deceased and ne was taken
in the rural hospital for medical treatment. P W 6 ASI Baburao Sonawane has
testified about the investigation carried out by him. During his evidence he has
proved the spot memo Exh.14 and complaint Exh. 22.

8. I have heard earned APP and learned counsel for the accused. Learned
APP has submitted that prosecution has proved the case against accused,
beyond reasonable doubt. Eye witnesses has stated that because of the rash
and negligent driving of the accused, deceased succumbed to the burn injuries
and therefore, according to Ld. APP leniency cannot be shown while
punishing the accused. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused
submitted that four prosecution witnesses are hostile and P W. 4 Narottam
Bahare has not stated which vehicle gave dash and stated that the furnace
over which the pakodas were frying was on road and therefore, the hotel
owner was negligent and he encroached on the government road and he
himself was negligent. Further, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted P W
Narottam Bahare has stated during cross examination that the furnace was in
the hotel and it is not the Case of prosecution that the accused gave dash to
the furnace in the hotel. The owner of the hotel, Vikas is not examined by
prosecution which was the best available witness and therefore, the evidence
on record is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable
doubt. For all these reasons according to Ld. Counsel for the accused, the
accused deserves for acquittal.
9. AS to Point No. 1 and 2
To prove the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC the prosecution must
prove that the a) the accused was driving the vehicle or was riding
b) he was driving or riding it on public way and
c) he was driving or riding rashly or negligently and by driving or riding
endangered human life or was such as to be likely to cause hurt or injury
In order to prove the offence punishable U/s 304(A) of IPC
prosecution must prove
a) the death of human being
b) the accused caused the death
c) the death was caused by doing of rash and negligent act, though it did not
amount to culpable homicide.
10. P W 1 Ajay Sapkal and PW 2 Jagdish Patankar have not supported the
prosecution case. During their cross examination the contents of spot memo and
the incident is not proved. P w 3 Kantabai Teviskar is the wife of the deceased
and she turned hostile to the prosecution.
During her cross examination by Ld. APP she has admitted that on 18/08/2008
her husband had gone in the hotel for Vikas Pardeshi for work and on that day
accused gave dash to the furnace because of which the boiling oil spilled on the
person of her husband and he succumbed to the burn injuries. She has further
admitted that compromise took place between her and the accused. During her
cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, she has admitted that she has
not seen the occurrence of incident and who gave dash to the furnace.
In this respect Ld. APP has relied on Dharyashil Alias Pampi Mahadevrao
Gahte Vs. State of Maharashtra in 2003 CRIL. J. 317. wherein it has been
observed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that merely because the witness
turned hostile, his entire testimony cannot be thrown out.
In the case in band also P W 3 Kantabai the wife of deceased has also
turned hostile to the prosecution but during her cross examination she has
admitted that her husband died because of the dash given by the motorcycle
rider to the furnace. She has also admitted that because of the boiling oil spilled
on the person of her husband, he succumbed to burn injuries.
Therefore, in view of the observations of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case of Dharayashil (supra) this part of the testimony of P W 3 Kantabai
Teviskar can be relied that because of the burn injuries, the deceased Rohan
died. Though P w 3 Kantabai Teviskar has stated during her cross examination
by Ld. Counsel for the accused that she has not seen the incident personally, it
has brought on record that the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries because
of the dash given by the motorcycle driver. In this respect cross examination of
P W 4 Narottam Bahare and P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar indicates that it is not
suggested to them that the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries because of
the dash given by motorcycle rider. Therefore, from the evidence of P W 3
Kantabai Teviskar P W. 4 Narottam Bahare and P W. 5 Dattaraj Lohar it has
come on record that one motorcycle drover gave dash to the furnace because of
which the boiling oil spilled on the person of the deceased and he succumbed to
the burn injuries.
Therefore, though the inquest memo and post mortem report of the deceased are
not proved, through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and on perusal of the
cross examination of prosecution witnesses on the part of accused, I am of the
opinion that those are duly proved, now it has to be seen from the evidence on
record whether the motorcycle was driven by accused and he gave dash. to the
furnace.
11. P W 4 Narottam Bahare has stated that he does not know the name of the
accused, he has identified his face before the Court. Though he could not state
the number of the motorcycle, he has stated that the accused was driving the
Splendor motorcycle. Therefore, I do not accept the argument of Ld. Defence
counsel that the prosecution witnesses have not properly identified the accused
because they have not stated the number of the motorcycle. In my opinion, P W
4 Narottam Bahare and P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar has identified the accused because
both of them have stated that on the day of incident while they were taking
refreshment in the hotel of Vikas, accused came there and gave dash to the
furnace in the hotel.
12. It has been tried to bring on record that the hotel of Vikas is on Yawal -
Raver road.

Therefore, it is an encroachment of government road.

According to. Ld. Counsel for the accused, it is the negligence of the hotel
owner Vikas and therefore the accused cannot be blamed for this. But the cross
examination of P W 4 Narottam Bahare and P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar indicates that
both of them have denied that the hotel was on the road. Though P W 4
Narottam Bahare has stated that the premises of hotel is the portion of the well
(Pai Vihir) and that some portion of the well has been demolished because of
the encroachment, it does not indicate that the hotel was running on the road.
Further P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar was asked about the rush in the area of bus stand
and he has admitted it but clarified that at the time of incident there was no rush.
This clarification of P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar indicates that while he along with P
W 4 Narattom Bahare were

taking refreshment in that hotel they saw the incident and therefore properly
identified the accused.

Moreover, from the entire cross examination of P W 5 Dattaraj Loharta it is

nowhere denied that on the relevant day the accused was not driving the
motorcycle and gave dash to the furnace over which the deceased was frying
pakodas because of which the boiling oil spilled on the person of the deceased
and he succumbed to the burn injuries.

13. P W 6 ASI Baburao Sonawane has proved the spot memo Exh. 14 and
complaint Exh 22 during his evidence. I find his testimony cogent and reliable.
It has brought on record that near the spot of incident there is office of
Panchayat Samiti, well and though it is considered that there is crowdy area
near the spot of incident P W 4 Narattom Bahare and P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar has
stated at the time of incident there was no rush. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that the discrepancies pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused in the
evidence of witnesses during his argument are not of much importance. There is
no negligence of the accused which has been brought on record. In respect of
the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that the hotel owner Vikas the best
available witness has not been examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the
prosecution case. On perusal of record summons report dated 23-01-2014
indicates that Vikas Pardeshi the owner of the hotel is dead and his death
certificate is also filed on record by police. It is make at Exh 25. That is the
reason that the owner of the hotel is not examined by prosecution and according
to me it is not fatal to the prosecution case.

Ld APP has relied on Chhuttan Vs. State of U. P reported in 1996 CRJ I J 649

wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court that minor
discrepancies shown in the cross examination area of no consequences and they
only show that witness has not been tutored and therefore, evidence of such
witness is reliable. I have already held that the discrepancies in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are not of much
importance and does not shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses
and considering the observations of Hon'ble Allahahad High Court in the cited
case law above, I arrive at specific conclusion that through the evidence of P W
4 Narattom Bahare P W 5 Dattaraj Lohar and P W 6 ASI Baburao Sonawane it
has come on record that on the relevant day accused drove Splendor motorcycle
bearing NO. MH12KS3272 in his possession in rash and negligent manner and
gave dash to the furnace in the hotel of Vikas Pardeshi because of which the
boiling oil spilled on the person of the deceased and he succumbed to the burn
injuries. The admitted portion of the cross examination of P W 3 Kantabai
Teviskar can also be considered in respect of the death of her husband by burn
injuries. Considering the admission given by P W 3 Kantabai Teviskar that
compromise took place between her and the accused, it is quite possible that she
turned hostile to prosecution. Though spot memo Exh 14 indicates that the
motorcycle is not seized from the spot Exh 10 indicates that the certificate of
mechanical examination of motorcycle No MH12KS3272 is admitted by
defence.

13. In view of foregoing discussion the evidence on record indicates that the
accused by his rash and negligent driving gave dash to the furnace in the hotel
because of which the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries. The prosecution
has proved the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
points are answered in affirmative. The guilt of the accused is proved beyond
reasonable doubt and therefore, I find it proper to hear the accused on quantum
of sentence.

Date: Judicial Magistrate, F C Yawal.

The accused did not submit anything. Ld. APP and Ld. Defence Counsel absent
when repeatedly called. At this stage Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused is
present. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that considering the age of the accused
and considering the fact that he is the only bread earner in his family and having
small children, it be considered and the accused be released on admonition. It is
also submitted that the accused is in service and his entire family is dependent
on him. I have already observed that because of the rash and negligent driving
of the accused, the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries because of the
boiling oil spilled on his person. Therefore, for the negligent act of the accused,
lenient view cannot be taken only for the reason that he is the only bread earner
in his family and his family members are dependent on him. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that for the offence punishable U/s 304(a) of IPC the accused shall
suffer simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 2000/- on default
of payment of fine the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month
and 15 days. If the fine amount is recovered, the compensation of Rs. 3000/- be
given to P W 3 Kantabai Teviskar after appeal period is over accordingly I pass
the following order.

ORDER

1. Accused Pramod Salunke R/o Yawal is hereby convicted vide S 255(2) of Cr

P C. for the offence punishable U/s 279 of IPC. The accused shall suffer simple
imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs 100/- (Rs. One Thousand Only)
in default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for
one month.

2. For the offence punishable U/s 304(a) of IPC the accused shall suffer
imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs 200/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) in
default of payment of fine the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for one
month and 15 days.

3. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

4. Towards compensation Rs 3000/- (Rs Three Thousand only) be given to P

W3 Kantabai Teviskar out of the fine amount if recovered any after appeal
period is over.

5. Accused to surrender his bail bond.

6. The seized motorcycle hearing No. MH12KS3272 is already returned to its

owner of supratnama, the supratnama bond shall be made absolute.

7. Dictated in open court in presence of accused and his advocate.

8. Copy of this judgment be supplied to accused free of cost forthwith.

Date- 11/05/2015 sd/-xxx

(J. R Pulate)

Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Yawal

Fine paid Rs. 3000/-

(Rs. Three Thousand only)

Sd/- xxxx
10 rs. Exh No. 31
COURT FEE
STAMP
FORM OF BOND TO BE TAKEN FROM SECURITIES IN A
CRIMINAL CASE
WHEN ACCUSED PERSONS ARE CONVICTED AND THEY SHALL
PREFFERED AND APPEAL AGAINST SAID ORDER IN THE COURT OF
SESSION.
Sum. C.C. No. 72014/2008
In the court of Judicial Magistrate R C. Yawal.
Dist: Bhor.

State - Complainant's
V/S.
Pramod Salunke - Accused.
R/o Yawal.
Where as Pramod Salunke R/o Yawal, Dist.; Bhor. He has been convicted by
Jayshree Bajaj, Esquire Magistrate F. C of the offence of ______ punishable U/s
379, 304(a) of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to the undergo S.I.
Imprisonment of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000 & 2000 respectively
or in default of payment of the said firm to the further term of imprisonment for
one month and fifteen days respectively is going to preferred and appeal against
the said order the Court of Hon’ble Sessions Judge and made an application in
this Court for suspension of sentence and release to him on bail and this Court
have passed an Order that the said accused be released furnishing bail of Rs.
10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and surety.

I do hereby find myself to attend in the Court as well as in the court of Hon’ble
Sessions Court on the day of _________ and to continue so to attend until
otherwise directed by the court and in case of making default I bind myself to
forefit to Government the sum of Rs. 10000/- (Rupee Ten Thousand Only).

Dated this 11th day of May 2015.

Before me

sd/-xxx sd/-xxx

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Signature Of accused

Yawal.

I, (Surety) Sanjay Salunke R/o Yawal Tq. Yawal, Dist: Bhor, I do

hereby declare myself surety for the (Accused) Pramod Salunke, R/o Yawal Tq.
Yawal, Dist: Bhor, now a convicted in this Court and he has preferred and
appealed in the Court of Hon’ble Sessions Court that he shall attend before this
Court on ______ day _____ 200 fixed for appearance of the accused with
Hon’ble Appellant Court Order and in case of his making default therein, I bind
myself to forfeit to Government the sum of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only)

Date this 11th May 2015

___________

Accepted

Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx

Judicial Magistrate F.C (Signature of Surety)

Yawal
 Form of Bond to be taken from sureties in a criminal appeal (Regular
Criminal Case) when accused persons are admitted the Bail Pending the
decision of the appeal.

Sum.C.C.No-70214/2008

State - Complainant’s

V/s.

Pramod Salunke - Accused

Whereas Pramod Salunke, R/o Yawal, Dist: Bhor. Who has been
convicted by Jayshree Bajaj, Esquire Magistrate F.C of the offence of the IPC
punishable U/s. 279, 304(a) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
S.I imprisonment of period of Three months and Three Months to pay fine of
Rs. 1000+2000 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) or in default of payment of the
said firm to the further term of imprisonment for one month and 15 days resp.
has lodged and Appeal No. 48/09 in the Court of Session of Judge of Bhor
against the said Conviction and sentence has made an application in the said
appeal to be released on bail and the said Court having passed an order that the
said Accused maybe released on furnishing bail of Rs. 10000 (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) and surety to be approved by sureties.

Dated this 5th June 2015.

Before me sd/- xxxx

Sd/- xxxx (Signature of Accused)

Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Yawal
 I, (Surety) Atul Ramrao Bhoite R/o Yawal ,Tq. Yawal ,
Dist.: Bhor, I do hereby myself ____________ (one of the sureties) for the said
Pramod Bajirao Bhoite R/o Yawal, Tq. Yawal, Dist: Bhor, now a (convict in the
District Jail appeal in the Court of Sessions against this Order) that he shall
attain before the court of Sessions Judge of Bhor as directed by the Hon’ble
Session Judge, Bhor Order. That he shall continue to attain until otherwise
directed by the said court and in case of his making default therein I bind myself
to forfeit to Government the sum of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).

Date this 5th June 2015

Sd/- XXX

Surety

Accepted
Sd/- xxx
Judicial Magistrate,
Yawal.