Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Navin Narendra Raybagi on 11 November, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2025:BHC-AS:48877
P.H. Jayani 40(B) ALSST11256.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (ALS) (ST.) NO. 11256 OF 2025
The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant
V/s.
Navin Narendra Raybagi .... Respondent
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Applicant - State.
Mr. Dinkar Prakash, API, Naupada Police Station, present.
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.
DATED : 12th NOVEMBER, 2025
P.C. :-
1) We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor on the Application
which seek leave to file an Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated
07/01/2025 thereby acquitting the accused of the charge under Sections 307,
353, 332, 337, 279 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act.
2) With the able assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor, we
have perused the impugned judgment.
As per the case of the prosecution, the informant working as
Police Constable at Naupada Police Station was returning to the police station
along with his associates and he received a call from the police control room
that one grey colour WagonR car was being driven in high speed and
therefore, he followed the car and by overtaking it, stopped it at Teen Haath
P.H. Jayani 40(B) ALSST11256.2025.doc
Naka, Opposite Gurudwara. When he proceeded to inquire with the persons
in the car, the driver of the car suddenly started the car and increased its speed
and as per the prosecution, the car carried the informant on the bonnet by
driving negligently for two and half to three kilometers and in this incident,
the informant sustained injuries on his right hand little finger, elbow and
hand. The police then stopped the car, the accused was apprehended and
brought to the police station.
3) In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined the
informant, the victim himself as PW-1 and PW-2, who was on the patrolling
duty with the informant.
The two other witnesses i.e., PW-6 and PW-7 being examined as
independent witnesses, were relied upon by the prosecution as eye witnesses
and the Medical Officer who offered treatment to the injured, is examined as
PW-8.
4) Reading of the judgment would reveal that the reliance by the
prosecution on the two eye witnesses is not found to be trustworthy as the
Court did not find the case of the prosecution that the informant was carried
on the bonnet for about two and half to three kilometers, to be proved by any
evidence. Apart from this, relying upon the evidence of PW-6, the Court
noted that he did not see the police car chasing the car of the accused which
was stated by PW-7. Moreover, PW-6 has specifically deposed that the
P.H. Jayani 40(B) ALSST11256.2025.doc
policeman fell on the bonnet of the WagonR whereas PW-7 deposed that
WagonR dashed the policeman. Noting the inconsistency in the material
version of the two prosecution witnesses, the Court rightly concluded that no
credence can be given to both the independent witnesses and moreover, PW-6
has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the policeman had
jumped on the vehicle of the accused. Disbelieving the version of the two
witnesses, the Court then referred to the evidence in form of CCTV cameras
and PW-4 is examined as a person who was given the CCTV footage along
with 65B certificate however, noting that there is no forensic examination of
the CCTV footage and otherwise also, the footage is not on the point when
the incident started, the Court found that there is no evidence of the alleged
incident taking place as was the case of the prosecution.
5) Referring to the evidence of the Doctor (PW-8), who had denied
the suggestion that if the car dashes a person, it will impact the person below
the waist area, the suggestion was denied and the Doctor categorically
deposed that the injuries are in the nature of one incised wound and two
abrasions, being simple injuries. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Court
has rightly concluded that the offence under Section 307 of IPC which
necessary contemplate intention or knowledge that if the act would have
caused death, a person would have been guilty of murder, is not at all made
out.
P.H. Jayani 40(B) ALSST11256.2025.doc
6) Finding no legal infirmity in the finding recorded in the
impugned Judgment, we see no reason to interfere and refuse the leave to the
prosecution to raise a challenge to the impugned Judgment in an Appeal.
7) Application for Leave to Appeal stands dismissed.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
PREETI
HEERO
JAYANI
