Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Vijay Haribhau Falke on 6 December, 2021
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
2 apeal 625-04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant
SNEHA V/s.
NITIN
CHAVAN Vijay Haribhau Falke ..Respondent
Digitally signed ----
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN Mr. S.R. Agarkar,APP for the Appellant/State.
Date:
2021.12.07 Mr. Ashok Tajane a/w Kavita Tajane and Rekha Musale for the
16:17:58 +0530
Respondent
----
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 6 DECEMBER, 2021
JUDGMENT
1. By this Appeal, the Appellant/State is challenging the
acquittal of the Respondent/accused from an offence punishable
under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 184, 3 read with
Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case is that on 30.04.2002 at about 6.00 pm.
at village Rule, on Panshet-Pune road, the Respondent drove a Jeep
bearing No. MH-22-A-9861 in a rash and negligent manner,
resulting into the death of Heerabai Damu Kamble.
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 5
2 apeal 625-04
3. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses
including PW-5 Shankar Jagde, who is the owner of the said vehicle.
PW-1 Anubai Kamble, PW-2 Shantaram Kamble and PW-3 Gautam
Sakhale were examined as eyewitnesses to the accident. The
learned Magistrate by the impugned Judgment and Order dated
29.11.2003 in STC No.689 of 2002 has acquitted the Respondent
inter alia on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish,
as to whether it was the Respondent who was driving the jeep or it
was driven by the owner PW-5 Shankar Jagde. The learned
Magistrate has also noticed that in the statement of the victim
recorded prior to her death, she had sated that the Jeep was being
driven by one Shankar Jadhav. The learned Magistrate after
appreciating the evidence has also found that the Investigating
Officer had admitted that during his investigation it transpired that
the victim was crossing the road when the accident occurred. The
learned Magistrate has found that the accidents which occur while a
person is crossing the road, are generally due to the mistake of
judgment and not due to rash and negligent driving.
4. I have heard Mr. Agarkar, learned APP and Mr. Tajane the
learned counsel for the Respondent. With the assistance of the
learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record.
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 5
2 apeal 625-04
5. It is submitted by the learned APP that the prosecution
evidence has established that it was the Respondent, who was
driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It is
submitted that the evidence in such cases has to be appreciated on
broad human probabilities, as accidents occur at the spur of the
moment leaving little time for the witnesses to precisely noted as to
the manner in which and the cause leading to the accident.
6. Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel for the Respondent has
submitted that there are several discrepancies in the prosecution
evidence including on the point whether it was the Respondent, who
was driving the vehicle and therefore, the learned Magistrate was
justified in recording the finding of acquittal.
7. I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made. There is a clear discrepancy in the prosecution
evidence as to whether it was the Respondent, who was driving the
offending vehicle at the time of the accident. PW-5 Shankar Jagde,
who is the owner of the vehicle, who was sought to be examined as
an eyewitness, has turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution. Even the registration number of the said vehicle was
not mentioned by PW-7 Dnyandeo Mandve, Police Havaldar, who is
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 5
2 apeal 625-04
the complainant. The learned Magistrate has noted that the victim
in her statement, which is recorded prior to her death, has stated
that the Jeep was being driveb by Mr. Shankar Jadhav. There was
also a clear discrepancy as to the manner which the accident
occurred. The learned Magistrate in this regard has noted that as
per the prosecution evidence of the eyewitnesses PW-1 Anubai, PW-2
Shantaram, PW-3 Gautam, the victim Hirabai was standing on the
road along with PW-1 Anubai and her son when the victim was
allegedly dashed by the said vehicle. If we visualize the said picture,
the learned Magistrate has found that none of the witnesses i.e. PW-
1 Anubai or her son have sustained any injuries which is
improbable, if they were standing along with the victim on the road
when the accident occurred. Then there is certain discrepancy as to
whether the accident occurred, when the victim was crossing the
road which is quite contrary to the initial prosecution version that
victim along with Anubai and her son standing by the side of the
road when the accident occurred.
8. All these circumstances have prompted the learned Magistrate
to record the finding of acquittal. In my considered opinion, the
view taken by the learned Magistrate is a plausible view and does
not suffer from any infirmity, so as to require interference in an
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 5
2 apeal 625-04
appeal for acquittal. It is now well settled that it is only where the
acquittal is based on the finding which is found to be perverse or the
learned Trial Court has taken an impossible view, that the Appellate
Court can interfere in an order of acquittal (See the decision of the
Supreme Court in Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka 1).
Applying these principles, no case for interference is made out. The
Appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(C.V. BHADANG, J.)
1 (2007) 4 SCC 415
Sneha Chavan page 5 of 5
