Application for leave to appeal against an acquittal under Sections 279, 304 IPC and sections of the Motor Vehicle Act is rejected. The Court held the trial court's disbelief of witness evidence was not perverse.
Application for leave to file appeal is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ALS 5215.doc
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra .Applicant
V/s.
Mohan Nana Sargar.Respondent
Mr.A.R.Patil, Advocate, for the Applicant –
State
None for the Respondent
CORAM:A.R.JOSHI, J.
DATE :11.06.2015
P.C.
.Heard learned APP for the State on this
application for leave to file an Appeal
challenging the Judgment and Order of acquittal
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C.,
Islampur, District – Sangli dated 08.01.2015.
2.By the impugned Judgment and Order, the
respondent/accused was acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 279 & 304A of the
ALS 5215.doc
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 134A, 134B,
177, 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
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
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
2 of 5
ALS 5215.doc
traveling on the motor cycle lost their lives.
Admittedly, the first informant was not an eye
witness. The eye witness was PW3 and according
to him, one motor vehicle gave dash to the
couple traveling on the motor cycle and due to
this accident, the couple died. The said eye
witnessPW3didnotidentifythe
respondent/accused during the trial and even he
has not noticed the registration number of the
vehicle. As such, the trial Court did not rely
on the evidence of the said PW3. As mentioned
earlier, the substantive evidence of two other
riders of the motor vehicle, to whom also dash
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
3 of 5
ALS 5215.doc
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
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
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.
4.In the result, there is nothing to
reappreciate the matter and reappraise the
4 of 5
ALS 5215.doc
material to come to the different conclusion.
Consequently, the present application for leave
to file the Appeal is rejected and disposed of
accordingly.
(A.R.JOSHI, J.)
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its power to grant leave to appeal challenging an order of acquittal.
Whether the trial court's conclusion that evidence was insufficient to prove the accused drove the vehicle and caused the accident was perverse.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Mohan Nana Sargar
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court