The State of Maharashta Vs Sadashiv Arjun Mirzi

cr.appln2552-10

rma

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2552 OF 2010 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010

¶6

The State of Maharashtra.. Applicant

¶7

Vs

¶8

Sadashiv Arjun Mirzi.. Respondent

¶9

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State

¶10

CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI &

¶11

 SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATE : 9th AUGUST, 2010

¶12

ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI]:

¶13

1.The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this
application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and
order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 237 of 2009. By
the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e original
accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Sections
304, 279 and 427 of the IPC and Sections 184 and 177 of the
Motor Vehicles Act.

¶14

2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:

¶15

On 15.05.2008, Rajraram Bhujbal (deceased) was riding

¶16

1

¶17

cr.appln2552-10

¶18

his two wheeler bearing No. MH-06/E 6256. At about 5.10
p.m., he reached Bhairavnath Weigh Bridge. It is the case of
the prosecution that the accused, at that time, was driving a
tanker from the wrong side and the tanker gave dash to the
two wheeler of Rajaram. Due to this, Rajaram fell down and
received injury on the head. He died due to injury to the
head, therefore, FIR came to be lodged against the accused.

¶19

3.Charge under Sections 304, 279 and 427 of IPC and
Sections 184 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be
framed against the accused person to which the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of
the accused is that of total denial and false implication.

¶20

4.We have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State
of Maharashtra. We have perused the judgment and order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge. We have also perused
the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After
carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated
herein below, we are of the opinion that the judgment and
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for
any interference.

¶21

5.PW1 Kashinath Bhujbal is the complainant in the present
case. This witness was not present at the spot at the time

¶22

2

¶23

cr.appln2552-10

¶24

of incident, therefore, his evidence is not of much help to
the prosecution.

¶25

6.According to the prosecution, PW 2 Somnath Chavhan and
PW 3 Hanumant Rasal are the eye witnesses to the said
incident. It is pertinent to note that PW 2 in his cross-
examination has admitted that the two wheeler vehicle of the
deceased gave dash at the cleaner side of the stationary
tanker. Even after explaining the question to this witness,
he again gave the same reply. He has also admitted that he
went to police station to lodge his complaint on the second
day. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, some doubt is
created in the mind i.e whether the tanker really dashed the
two wheelers or whether the two wheeler gave dash to a tanker
which was stationary?

¶26

7.PW 3 Hanumant Rasal, in his examination-in-chief has
stated that while Rajaram Bhujbal was going to Shikrapur on
his M-80 vehicle. one tanker came from opposite side and gave
a dash to the vehicle of Rajaram. Due to this, Rajaram was
thrown on the road and he sustained injuries. However, in
cross-examination of this witness, it has been brought on
record that what was stated by him before the police was that
the tanker was parked on the spot of the incident. He denied
that any such portion was stated by him in his statement

¶27

3

¶28

cr.appln2552-10

¶29

before the police. This contradiction was put to this
witness in his cross-examination and marked "A" and got
proved by the defence. It clearly shows that the tanker was
parked at the spot of the incident. Thus, it is clear that
it was not the tanker which gave dash to the two wheeler of
the deceased but it was the two wheeler of the deceased which
gave dash to the tanker which at the relevant time was
stationary i.e parked on the spot of the incident. All these
and other facts have been taken into consideration by the
learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondent
accused.

¶30

8.We may make here useful reference to a decision of the
Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Dinesh,
2009(3) SCALE 345 wherein in case of appeal against
acquittal, it has been held as under:

¶31

"Cr.P. Code 302 - Appeal against acquittal - Held.
If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record - the Appellate
Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by trial court."

¶32

Thus, when two conclusions can be arrived at on the
basis of the evidence on record, the conclusion which is
favourable to accused should be accepted. Looking to the
evidence on record, we find that conclusion arrived at by the

¶33

4

¶34

cr.appln2552-10

¶35

learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible one.
Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment and
order of acquittal.

¶36

9.In view of the above, leave to file appeal, is refused.
Application is rejected.

¶37

[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

¶38

5

The State of Maharashta v. Sadashiv Arjun Mirzi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashta v. Sadashiv Arjun Mirzi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsing Motisa Arshid and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Santosh Manohar Chavan and Ors.

Ramesh Kannaiyalal Jat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santaji Madhukar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Purshottam D. Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Santaji Madhukar Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.