Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Subhashrao Rambhau Gayake

Bombay HC25 Oct 2010APPLN/4734/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the State's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a traffic accident case involving death. The court held that the trial court's finding was a reasonable view and cited C. Anthony to emphasize that appellate courts should not disturb acquittals merely because a different view might exist.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent was refused; the criminal application was rejected.

1.The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 03rd July 2010 passed by the learned JMFC, Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur in S.C.C. NO. 232 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e original accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 184/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

2.The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 3rd March 2009 at about 4.45 p.m, respondent-original accused drove his tempo at Kagal Murgud Road in a rash and negligent manner and gave a dash to Jagannath who was riding his motor cycle. Jagannath sustained injury to his head and died on the spot.

3.Charge under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 184/177 of the Motor Vehicle Act came to be framed against the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication.

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

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e PW 1 Rangrao Patil and PW 3 Appasaheb Patil. Though PW 3 claims to be an eye witness, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was sitting on the back side of the motor cycle, hence he could not see who was driving the tempo. He also admitted that he came to know the name of the accused from the police. As far as PW 1 is concerned, in his examination-in-chief itself, he has stated that he came to know the name of the accused as Subhash Gaike. It is pertinent to note that nowhere in his evidence, has this witness stated that

6.The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different possible view may arise on the evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of C. Anthony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. I have already observed that the view taken by the learned JMFC is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, leave to file appeal, is refused.

The State of Maharashtra v. Subhashrao Rambhau Gayake

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Subhashrao Rambhau Gayake

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

Marico Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jalindar Nivrutti Hede Vs the State of Maharashtra

A. Nasar Cherukara Vs R.G. Gokhale and Anr.

Sudam Ganpat Doiphode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhausahab Devappa Latthe and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shyamrao Laxman Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra