1/7

Tilak

(902)APPA-592-15

CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION

C
ou

CRIMINALAPPLICATIONNO.592of2015
IN
CRIMINALAPPEALNO.572OF2015

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY

SALMANSALIMKHAN

..APPLICANT

Versus

..RESPONDENT

ig
h

THESTATEOFMAHARASHTRA

Mr.Amit Desai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gopal Krishna Shenoy,

Mr.Shrikant Shivade, Mr.Niranjan Mundargi, Mr.Anand Desai,
Ms.ChandrimaMitraandMr.ManharS.Saini,Advocatesi/bDSK
Legalfortheapplicant.

ba
y

Mr.SandeepK.Shinde,PublicProsecutorwithMr.DeepakThakre,
APPandMr.P.D.Gharat,APPfortheRespondentState.

om

P.C.:

CORAM: ABHAYM.THIPSAY,J.
DATED: 8thMAY,2015

The Appeal filed by the applicant challenging his

convictioninrespectofoffencespunishableundersection304IIof
theIPC,338oftheIPC,337oftheIPCandoffencespunishable
undertheMotorVehiclesAct,hasjustnowbeenadmittedbyme.

Bythisapplication,theapplicant/appellantpraysthat

thesubstantivesentencesimposeduponhimbythetrialcourt,be
suspended during the pendency of the Appeal, and that he be
releasedonbail.

::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2015 15:49:48 :::

2/7

Tilak

IhaveheardMr.AmitDesai,learnedSeniorAdvocate

rt

(902)APPA-592-15

fortheapplicant. IhaveheardMr.SandeepK.Shinde,learned

C
ou

PublicProsecutorwithMr.P.D.Gharat,APPandMr.DeepakThakre,
APPfortheState.
4

Themostseveresentencethathasbeenimposedupon

the applicant/appellant is in respect of the offence punishable

ig
h

undersection304IIoftheIPC.ItisofRigorousImprisonmentfor
aperiodof5(five)years,andafineofRs.25,000/.
5

ThoughthelearnedPublicProsecutordidnotoppose

theadmissionoftheAppeal,heopposedtheapplicationforthe
suspensionofthesentence.

Mr.Desai,learnedSeniorAdvocatefortheapplicant,

ba
y

interalia,submittedthattheoffencepunishableundersection304
IIoftheIPC,wasnotmadeoutagainsttheapplicant/appellant.It
is submitted that the evidence to show that the

om

applicant/appellant was driving the vehicle in question at the

materialtime,aswasadducedduringthetrial,isnotsatisfactory.

Itisalsosubmittedthattherewassomeevidencetoindicatethat
theaccidentoccurredduetotheburstingoftyre,whichevidence
wasnottakenintoconsiderationbythelearnedtrialJudge.Itis
alsosubmittedthattheevidenceabouttheapplicantbeingdrunk
atthematerialtime,wasnotsatisfactory.Mr.Desaialsocontended
thatthefactsoftheprosecutioncaserevealedthat,atthematerial
time, there were four persons in the offending vehicle, but the
prosecutiondidnotchoosetothrowlightonastowhothefourth

::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2015 15:49:48 :::

3/7

Tilak

(902)APPA-592-15

person was. It is also submitted that one Kamaal Khan was,

rt

admittedly, present in the vehicle at the material time, and

therefore, a material witness, but he was not examined. He

C
ou

submittedthattheapplicant/appellanthasagoodcaseonmerits.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there

wassufficientevidencetoindicatethattheapplicantwasdriving
thevehicleinquestionatthematerialtime.Hesubmittedthatthe

ig
h

evidenceofburstingofthetyrewasofnoconsequence,asthat
hadhappenedasaresultoftheaccidentitself.Healsosubmitted
thattheevidenceclearlyestablishedthattheapplicantwasdrunk
atthematerialtime,andthattheapplicantdidpossessadegreeof

knowledge which would bring the offence committed by him

under the penal provisions of section 304 II of the IPC. The
learnedPublicProsecutoralsosubmittedthatthetheoryofthere

ba
y

being a fourth person present in the offending vehicle, at the

materialtime,isbaselessandintroducedasanafterthought.
8

Itisalsosubmittedthattherewerevalidreasonsfor

om

notexaminingKamaalKhanasawitnessfortheprosecution.
9

Ihavecarefullyconsideredthematter.

10

The First Information Report was lodged, alleging

commissionofanoffencepunishableundersection304Aofthe
IPC.Whenthechargesheetcametobefiled,theaccusationofan
offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC, was
levelled. When this waschallenged bythe applicant/appellant,
thisCourtquashedthechargeinrespectofanoffencepunishable

::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2015 15:49:48 :::

4/7

Tilak

(902)APPA-592-15

undersection304IIoftheIPC. Thetrialthenproceededbefore

rt

the Magistrate on the accusation of the applicant having

committedtheoffencepunishableundersection304AoftheIPC.

C
ou

17witnessesfortheprosecutionwereexamined. Itisthereafter
thattheMagistrateformedanopinionthattheoffencecommitted
bytheapplicantamountedtoonepunishableundersection304II
oftheIPC,andcommittedthecasetotheSessionscourt. After
committal, a charge in respect of an offence punishable under
denovotrialwasheld.
11

ig
h

section304IIoftheIPCwasframedagainsttheapplicant,anda

Theapplicantwasonbailthroughoutthetrial.Even

aftertheadditionofthechargeofanoffencepunishableunder
section 304 II of the IPC, his liberty was not disturbed. The
applicantisnotlikelytoabscond,ifreleasedonbailduringthe

ba
y

pendencyoftheAppealandthereisnotevenasuggestionto
thateffect.
12

Under these circumstances, even on the basis that

om

there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the applicant was

drivingthevehicleinquestion,atthematerialtime,certainly,a

numberofarguablepointshavebeenraised,whichneedserious
consideration.Amongotherthings,whethertheoffenceallegedly
committed by the applicant, would amount to an offence
punishableundersection304IIoftheIPC,andnotmerelyan
offence punishable under section 304 A of the IPC, would also
needexamination.

::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2015 15:49:48 :::

5/7

Tilak

13

(902)APPA-592-15

This would be of quite some importance as the

rt

offencepunishableundersection304AoftheIPC,isbailable,and
invitesalesserpunishment.Theapplicant/appellantcouldnotbe

C
ou

dealtwithundertheprovisionsofsection389(3)oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedureonlybecausethesentenceimposeduponhim,
is more than a period of three years which was possible only
because of the conviction in respect of an offence punishable
undersection304IIoftheIPC.WhenastatutoryrighttoAppeal

ig
h

isconferred upon a convict, andwhen an Appeal isadmitted,

indicating that the correctness, legality and propriety of the
judgmentofthetrialcourtwouldbeexaminedbytheAppellate
Court,itwouldberatherunreasonabletosuggestthatevenwhere

arguable points needing consideration have been raised, the

appellantmustbedetainedincustodyinexecutionofthesentence

ba
y

tilltheAppealisheard.
14

Normally,insuchcases,theStatedoesnotopposethe

suspensionofsentenceduringthependencyoftheAppealincase
ofanaccusedwhoisonbailduringthetrial.However,inviewof

om

thefactthatinthiscase,someoppositionhasbeenoffered,Ihave
considered the possibility of directing the Appeal to be

expeditiouslyheard. Neitherthe learned PublicProsecutor, nor

thelearnedcounselfortheappellanthasanyobjectiontostipulate
thattheAppealshallbeheardanddecidedexpeditiously.
15

Thisisnotacasewhereinspiteoftheadmissionof

the Appeal, the appellant should be kept in detention till the

Appealisdecided. Itwouldbepropertosuspendthesentence
duringthependencyoftheAppeal.

::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2015 15:49:48 :::

6/7

Tilak

(902)APPA-592-15

Applicationisallowed.

17

PendingthehearingandfinaldisposaloftheAppeal,

C
ou

rt

16

substantivesentencesimposedupontheapplicant/appellantshall
standsuspended,andtheapplicant/appellantshallbereleasedon
bailinthesumofRs.30,000/(RupeesThirtythousand)withone

18

ig
h

suretyinlikeamount.

Theapplicantshallforthwtihsurrenderhimselfbefore

the trial court, and execute necessary bail bonds in accordance

19

withthisorder.

The applicant may deposit cash of Rs.30,000/

(Rupees Thirty thousand) in lieu of surety as a temporary

ba
y

measure. Thisfacilityshallbeavailabletotheapplicantfora
periodoftwoweeks,withinwhichtimetheapplicantisexpected
tofurnishasolventsuretyinthebailamount.

om

20

The passport of the applicant is already with the

Investigating Agency. The applicant has no objection to the

retentionofthepassportbytheInvestigatingAgency,duringthe
pendencyoftheAppeal.
21

Applicationisallowedintheaforesaidterms.

22

HearingoftheAppealisorderedtobeexpedited.

::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2015 15:49:48 :::

7/7

Tilak

It is decided by consent, that the Appeal shall be

C
ou

heardfinally,asfaraspossible,inthemonthofJuly2015.

rt

23

(902)APPA-592-15

24

Libertytosupplyaprivatepaperbook.

25

TheAppealbelistedonboardfordirectionson15 th

26

ig
h

June2015.

Atthisstage,Mr.Desaisubmitsthatlibertybegranted

totheapplicanttoapplyforapermissiontotravelabroad. Itis
needlesstosaythatsuchlibertyhasnotbeentakenaway,andit

wouldbeopenforhimtomakesuchanapplicationtothisCourt,
which,intheeventofbeingmade,shallbedealtwith,onmerits

(ABHAYM.THIPSAY,J)

om

ba
y

andinaccordancewithlaw.

::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2015 15:49:48 :::