Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Mohan Nana Sargar

Bombay HC11 Jun 2015ALS/52/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for special leave to appeal, the Bombay High Court rejected the State's application. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondent for rash driving and causing death, finding the trial court's reliance on variances in witness evidence and lack of fatality details reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Special leave to appeal is rejected; the acquittal stands.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohan Nana Sargar — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

ALS 52-15.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2015

¶5

The State of Maharashtra .Applicant

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

Mohan Nana Sargar.Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.R.Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant –
State

¶9

None for the Respondent

¶10

CORAM:A.R.JOSHI, J.
DATE :11.06.2015

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.Heard learned APP for the State on this

¶13

application for leave to file an Appeal

¶14

challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal

¶15

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C.,
Islampur, District – Sangli dated 08.01.2015.

¶16

2.By the impugned Judgment and Order, the

¶17

respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of the

¶18

1 of 5

¶19

ALS 52-15.doc

¶20

Indian Penal Code and under Sections 134A, 134B,
177, 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶21

3.The case of the prosecution is that on
02.07.2010 at night the present respondent drove
his vehicle Mahindra Bolero Jeep in a rash and
negligent manner and gave dash to the couple
traveling on a motor cycle. The couple died in
the incident on the spot. Intimation was given
to the police regarding the said incident. Also
according to the case of the prosecution, the
present respondent thereafter gave dash to two
motor cycle riders causing injury to them. What
weighed with the trial Court was variance in the
substantive evidence of two motor cycle riders

¶22

to whom allegedly the dash was given by the
motor jeep driven by the respondent. But the
trial Court came to the conclusion that it was
not established whether the same motor jeep was
involved in the accident in which the couple

¶23

2 of 5

¶24

ALS 52-15.doc

¶25

traveling on the motor cycle lost their lives.
Admittedly, the first informant was not an eye
witness. The eye witness was PW-3 and according
to him, one motor vehicle gave dash to the

¶26

couple traveling on the motor cycle and due to
this accident, the couple died. The said eye
witnessPW-3didnotidentifythe

¶27

respondent/accused during the trial and even he

¶28

has not noticed the registration number of the

¶29

vehicle. As such, the trial Court did not rely
on the evidence of the said PW-3. As mentioned

¶30

earlier, the substantive evidence of two other
riders of the motor vehicle, to whom also dash

¶31

was given by the motor jeep, was not believed by
the trial Court considering inconsistency in the
evidence insofar as spot offence is concerned.
Even in paras 27 and 28, the trial Court has
discussed that it could not be ascertained
whether there was a failure of brakes or
otherwise as the motor jeep was in completely

¶32

3 of 5

¶33

ALS 52-15.doc

¶34

damaged condition and that nothing was brought
before the trial Court that allegedly the
respondent/accused was in intoxicated condition
while driving the vehicle. Even the trial Court
came to the conclusion that there was no cognate

¶35

evidence to show that on the night of the
incident the respondent was actually driving the
vehicle. Considering the evidence to prove the
charges leveled by the trial Court against the
respondent/accused in the opinion of this Court,
the reasoning given by the trial Court cannot be
termed as perverse and not based on the material
available on record. In other words, it must be

¶36

said that there is nothing to come to the
different view than that was taken by the trial
Court in disbelieving the evidence brought
before it.

¶37

4.In the result, there is nothing to

¶38

re-appreciate the matter and re-appraise the

¶39

4 of 5

¶40

ALS 52-15.doc

¶41

material to come to the different conclusion.

¶42

Consequently, the present application for leave
to file the Appeal is rejected and disposed of

¶43

accordingly.

¶44

 (A.R.JOSHI, J.)

¶45

5 of 5

The State of Maharashtra v. Mohan Nana Sargar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Mohan Nana Sargar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maruti Sopan Bhandalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aarif Mahamadkhan Maldar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Raju Gudusaheb Sapkhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohan Nana Sargar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Namdeo Gunjal and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dattatraya Namdeo Gunjal and Ors.