Bombay High Court
U. Ramnath B. Gopal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 2026
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
Digitally signed
2026:BHC-AS:8617 CHITRA SANJAY
by CHITRA
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.02.18
20:50:05 +0530
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No. 333 of 2011
U Ramnath B Gopal
Age 50 years, R/at:7th Block,
Suratkal, Krishnapura,
State Karnataka. ... Applicant/Org.Accused.
versus
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of MRA Marg
Police Station. ...Respondent
----
Mr Vinit Jain a/w Mr Gaurav Mhatre, for the Applicant.
Ms AA Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent / State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 18 February 2026
P.C.:
The present revision application takes exception to the
judgment and order dated 10 October 2008, passed by the
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court,
Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in CC No.80/PW/2006, convicting the
applicant for the offences punishable under Section 304A of the
Indian Penal Code (‘IPC‘), and the judgment and order dated
20 May 2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.647 of 2008, confirming thePage 1 of 8
__________________________________________________18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docxconviction.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14 February 2006,
the applicant was driving a truck bearing registration No.KA-
19-A-5274 near Manama Hotel when the vehicle allegedly
struck a pedestrian, Vilas Vishnu Thorat, resulting in fatal
injuries. On the basis of these allegations, CR No.56 of 2006
came to be registered at the MRA Marg Police Station,
Mumbai.
3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The applicant
pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the
prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case:
Manik Santosh Das, the eyewitness and informant (PW-1);
Uttam Rambhav Pawar, panch witness (PW-2); Bhanudas
Vithoba Thorat, the deceased’s relative (PW-3); Bhimrao
Dyandeo Adhav, the investigating officer (PW-4); and Manohar
Sitaram Patil, the police inspector (PW-5). After the prosecution
evidence was concluded, the statement of the accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The accused denied the incriminating
circumstances and did not adduce defence evidence.
4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the
evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable
Page 2 of 8
__________________________________________________
18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docx
under Section 304A of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/-, with default stipulations. In appeal, the learned
appellate Court confirmed the conviction. Aggrieved by the
concurrent findings of guilt, the applicant has invoked the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. Heard Mr Vinit Jain, the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicant, and Ms AA Deshmukh, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/
State, and perused the entire record and proceedings.
6. For adjudication of the present revision, the testimonies of
PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 assume determinative
significance. The prosecution case rests substantially on the
ocular version of PW-1. A close scrutiny of his evidence reveals
serious inconsistencies and omissions that strike at the root of
his credibility. In his examination-in-chief, PW-1 deposed that
while washing his face, he saw a vehicle coming from the
direction of Masjid Bandar collide with a pedestrian and pass
over his head. Significantly, he did not specify the nature or
type of vehicle, its registration number, or the precise part of
the vehicle that initially struck the deceased.
7. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he was unaware
Page 3 of 8
__________________________________________________
18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docx
of the type of vehicle involved and expressed uncertainty even
with regard to the registration number. Pertinently, PW-1
contradicted himself by stating that he did not know from
which direction the vehicle had approached. He further
introduced a revised account that the pedestrian was struck by
the front left wheel, a detail not disclosed to the investigating
officer. More importantly, the crucial assertion that the rear
wheel ran over the head of the deceased, after the initial
impact, also constitutes a material improvement, as this fact
was never stated in his prior statement. Such omissions on
material particulars, which go to the manner of impact and
sequence of events, cannot be treated as minor discrepancies as
they strike at the core of the prosecution’s case.
8. The evidence of PW-1 with respect to his vantage point is
equally wavering. At one stage, he stated that he was about ten
feet from the spot, and later reduced the distance to five feet.
This vacillation assumes importance when the witness purports
to describe minute details of the occurrence. Likewise, his
statements regarding the attire of the deceased are not only
inconsistent inter se but also contrary to the inquest
panchanama (Exh.8). He initially stated that the deceased wore
a white shirt, a fact not mentioned before the investigating
officer, and later altered his version to state that the deceased
Page 4 of 8
__________________________________________________
18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docx
wore a light blue shirt. Both these versions stand in clear
contradiction to the inquest panchanama, which records that
the deceased was wearing a grey shirt. These are not mere
embellishments but material improvements affecting credibility.
Significantly, PW-1’s evidence is wholly deficient as to the
manner of driving, speed, conduct of the driver, or surrounding
circumstances that would establish criminal rashness or
negligence.
9. Upon a comprehensive examination, the testimony of PW-
1 stands vitiated by material inconsistencies, significant
omissions and subsequent improvements that substantially
impair its probative value. At its highest, his deposition
establishes no more than the occurrence of an accident; it falls
conspicuously short of proving the essential culpable mental
element of rashness or negligence required to sustain a
conviction under Section 304A of the IPC.
10. PW-2, the panch witness to the spot panchanama, turned
hostile and denied the prosecution suggestions in toto.
Significantly, even during cross-examination by the prosecution,
no meaningful attempt was made to elicit critical aspects such
as traffic density, visibility, point of impact, skid marks or
mechanical condition of the vehicle. When PW-2 denied that a
motorcyclist had dashed against a pedestrian, the prosecution
Page 5 of 8
__________________________________________________
18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docx
failed to confront him effectively or extract material supporting
its case. His testimony thus affords no substantive assistance to
the prosecution.
11. The testimonies of PW-4, the investigating officer, and
PW-5, the police inspector, further compound the infirmities.
PW-4 categorically asserted that he prepared the spot
panchanama, while PW-5 likewise claimed authorship of the
same document, creating uncertainty as to its preparation and
authenticity. Notably, PW-5 deposed about the condition of the
road and the presence of brake marks at the scene. However,
the spot panchanama is conspicuously silent on the existence of
any such brake marks. This discordance between the oral
testimony of official witnesses and the panch witness, as well as
the documentary evidence, casts serious doubt on the reliability
and credibility of the investigation. The spot panchanama ought
to reflect all material particulars observed at the time. When
material features are either omitted from documentary evidence
or introduced belatedly through oral testimony, the probative
value of such assertions stands substantially eroded.
12. To sustain a conviction under Section 304A IPC, the
prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the
accused drove in a manner so rash or negligent as to cause
death and that such conduct was the proximate and efficient
Page 6 of 8
__________________________________________________
18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docx
cause of the fatal injuries. Rashness connotes a reckless act done
with conscious disregard to consequences; negligence implies
failure to exercise reasonable and prudent care. The mere
factum of an accident or resulting death does not ipso facto
attract criminal liability. The prosecution must prove the
specific act or omission constituting culpable rashness or
negligence.
13. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to adduce
cogent and consistent evidence to establish these essential
ingredients. The evidence of the sole eyewitness falls short of
crucial details; the panch witness does not support the
prosecution’s case; and the investigating officers’ testimonies
are mutually inconsistent and lack material particulars. The
Courts below, in convicting the applicant, appear to have
drawn inferences unsupported by reliable evidence and to have
overlooked material contradictions and omissions. Such
findings, being based on conjectures and surmises rather than
legally admissible and trustworthy evidence, suffer from
perversity and legal infirmity, warrant the interference of this
Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
14. In light of the foregoing, the present revision application
stands allowed. The judgment and order dated 10 October
2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Page 7 of 8
__________________________________________________
18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
Chitra Sonawane. 42-REVN-333-2011.docx
Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in CC
No.80/PW/2006, and the judgment and order dated 20 May
2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.647 of 2008, are quashed and
set aside. The applicant stands acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 304A IPC.
[R.N. Laddha, J.]
Page 8 of 8
__________________________________________________
18 February 2026
::: Uploaded on – 18/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:33:57 :::
