Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1611 (BOM)

State v. Sidhesh Shetgaonkar

2012-08-24

A.P.LAVANDE

body2012
Judgment : Heard Mr. D. Lawande, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-Appellant and Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'). 2. By this appeal, the appellant-State takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 16th September, 2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Ponda, Goa in Criminal Case No. 97/S/06/A, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as under: On 14th February, 2006, at about 11.20 a.m. at Manaswado, Kundai on National Highway 4, the accused drove the tanker bearing registration No. GA-01, Z-2715 in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Ponda to Panaji and dashed against the mini bus bearing registration No.GA-02, T-4634 which was driven by PW.2 Mohan Naik. On account of the accident, simple injuries were caused to PW.2 Mohan Naik and five other passengers travelling in the mini bus. After the accident, a panchanama Exhibit 11/C and Sketch Exhibit 12/C were drawn in the presence of pancha witnesses. PW.1 Tukaram Dessai was one of the panch witnesses. On the next day i.e. 15th February, 2006, PW.2 Mohan Naik, the driver of the mini bus lodged a complain Exhibit 15/C. The Investigating Officer Suresh Kaskar, Head Constable recorded statements of several witnesses in the Goa Medical College Hospital where some of the injured passengers, including PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar and PW.4 Nasrin Beig were admitted. Both the vehicles were referred for inspection to the Department of Transport and inspection of both the vehicles was carried out by PW.5 Vinod Arlekar. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Ponda. 4. The learned Magistrate explained the substance of accusation to the accused in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses, namely PW. 1 Tukaram Dessai, PW.2 Mohan Naik, the driver of the mini bus, PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar, and PW.4 Nasrin Beig, both of whom were travelling in the mini bus and were injured in the accident, PW.5 Vinod Arlekar, Motor Vehicle Inspector and PW.6 Investigating Officer Suresh Kaskar. 6. The defence of the accused was of total denial. 1 Tukaram Dessai, PW.2 Mohan Naik, the driver of the mini bus, PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar, and PW.4 Nasrin Beig, both of whom were travelling in the mini bus and were injured in the accident, PW.5 Vinod Arlekar, Motor Vehicle Inspector and PW.6 Investigating Officer Suresh Kaskar. 6. The defence of the accused was of total denial. It was further his case that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by PW.2 Mohan Naik. Learned Magistrate, by the impugned Judgment and Order, acquitted the accused of both the offences. 7. Mr. Lawande, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Magistrate has not analysed the evidence in its proper perspective and the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are not borne out from the evidence on record. He further submitted that the evidence of the three eye witnesses, namely PW.2 Mohan Naik, PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar and PW.4 Nasrin Beig have not been shaken in the cross examination and, their testimonies stand corroborated by PW.1 Tukaram Dessai, as well as by the scene of offence panchanama and the sketch. He further submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that the accident could have been caused on account of contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers is patently unsustainable on facts and in law. He further submitted that there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the versions of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 that the mini bus was being driven on the left side of the road and it was the accused who drove the tanker in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. In support of his submissions, Mr. Lawande relied upon the Judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karantaka vs. Rajakumar (MANU/KA/0260/1987) and an unreported Judgment delivered by this Court in the case of State vs. Antonio Soares, dated 25th August, 2006, passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2005. 8. Per contra, Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that although the powers of this Court in appeal against acquittals are coextensive with that of the learned Magistrate, having regard to the fact that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a possible view, no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgment and Order. 8. Per contra, Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that although the powers of this Court in appeal against acquittals are coextensive with that of the learned Magistrate, having regard to the fact that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a possible view, no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgment and Order. He further submitted that the point of impact of the two vehicles has not been established by the prosecution. Moreover, the presence of glass pieces has not been mentioned in the panchanama though PW.1 Tukaram Dessai has deposed to that effect in his examination-in-chief. He further submitted that the defence taken by the accused is probable and the finding given by the learned Magistrate that the version of PW.2 has not been corroborated by PW.3 and PW.4 cannot be said to be perverse, so as to warrant interference in the appeal against acquittal. Learned Counsel further submitted that no evidence has been led by the prosecution showing the point of impact of the two vehicles and, as such, the version of the accused that PW.2 Mohan Naik drove the mini bus on the right hand side, resulting in the accident, cannot be ruled out. Mr. Menezes, therefore, submitted that no case is made out for interference with the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the In support of his submissions, Mr. Menezes relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 . Judgments relied upon. 10. In view of the rival submissions, the following points arise for determination in this appeal: (1) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC are perverse, warranting interference by this Court? (2) Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused? 11. Since this is an appeal against acquittal, this Court will have to first find out whether the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the accused can be said to be perverse. In the case of State of Rajasthan(supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 7, observed thus: “7. 11. Since this is an appeal against acquittal, this Court will have to first find out whether the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the accused can be said to be perverse. In the case of State of Rajasthan(supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 7, observed thus: “7. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.) The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana.” 12. Perusal of the impugned Judgment discloses that the learned Magistrate has not marshalled the evidence which was required to be done by the Magistrate while dealing with a criminal case. The impugned Judgment though runs into 24 paragraphs, in first 18 paragraphs, the learned Magistrate has only narrated the prosecution case and referred to the prosecution evidence. Perusal of the impugned Judgment discloses that the learned Magistrate has not marshalled the evidence which was required to be done by the Magistrate while dealing with a criminal case. The impugned Judgment though runs into 24 paragraphs, in first 18 paragraphs, the learned Magistrate has only narrated the prosecution case and referred to the prosecution evidence. The grounds on which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused are as follows: (I) None of the eye witnesses, except PW.2 Mohan Naik the driver of the mini bus has stated that the tanker was overtaking the trolly and in that process, it reached towards the wrong side and dashed the oncoming mini bus; (II) PW.2 Mohan Naik in his complaint did not mention that the tanker was in the process of overtaking the trolly which came on the wrong side and dashed against the mini bus and this was stated only in the supplementary statement; (III) The accident could have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles i.e. could have been the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker as well as the driver of the mini bus. 13. In my considered view, none of the reasons given by the learned Magistrate are sustainable in law and, therefore, I have to reappreciate the entire evidence afresh. 14. The prosecution examined PW.2 Mohan Naik, who was driving the mini bus on the date of the accident i.e. 14.2.2006. He deposed that he left Panaji bus stand at about 10.50 a.m. and reached Kundaim Mansher at about 11.20 hours. After taking the stop at Mansher bus stop, he proceeded towards Ponda on the upward slope. At that time, he saw one tanker coming in the opposite direction, which was overtaking a trolley. The tanker was in a fast speed. While overtaking the said trolley, the said tanker reached towards his side. When he saw the tanker coming towards his vehicle, he immediately stopped and took the bus in reverse. But the tanker came and dashed on the mini bus towards the driver side. On account of the impact, the mini bus fell in a trench on the left hand side of the road. After the dash, the tanker went ahead towards Panaji side about half a kilometer and then stopped towards his side by the side of the road. But the tanker came and dashed on the mini bus towards the driver side. On account of the impact, the mini bus fell in a trench on the left hand side of the road. After the dash, the tanker went ahead towards Panaji side about half a kilometer and then stopped towards his side by the side of the road. On account of the dash, the front portion of the mini bus got damaged. He got pressed between the steering of the bus and the seat, due to which he sustained injury to his abdomen and back. Passengers in the bus were also injured. The tanker was driven by Siddesh (the accused) who came to the accident spot, after parking his tanker. He identified the accused as the driver of the tanker and also stated the registration number of the tanker. PW.2 stated that he was thereafter taken to Bambolim for medical treatment by GATES vehicle. He produced the complaint Exhibit 15/C which was lodged by him at Ponda Police Station on 15.2.2006. In the cross examination he admitted that he had not mentioned in the complaint that he stopped his mini bus when he saw the tanker overtaking the trolley. He admitted that in the supplementary statement he has stated that the tanker dashed the driver side of his mini bus. He admitted that there were damages to the right side of mini bus. He denied the suggestion that there were no damages to the front side of his mini bus. He further stated that the trolley which was overtaking the tanker did not stop, but proceeded. He stated that he did not note down the registration number of the trolley. He admitted that while proceeding from Kundaim to Ponda, there is an upward slope and a curve to the left side as one climbs the up and the same is less than half a kilometer. He denied the suggestion that he dashed against the tanker while negotiating the curve on the left side of the road. He also denied the suggestion that he was talking with the passengers in the mini bus and on account of which his attention got distracted and the accident occurred. He denied the suggestion that his statement that he took the bus in reverse was false. He also denied the further suggestions put to him. 15. He also denied the suggestion that he was talking with the passengers in the mini bus and on account of which his attention got distracted and the accident occurred. He denied the suggestion that his statement that he took the bus in reverse was false. He also denied the further suggestions put to him. 15. The prosecution also examined two passengers who were injured in the accident i.e. PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar and PW.4 Nasrin Beig. 16. PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar stated that she was proceeding to Sanvordem in the said mini bus and the accident occurred at about 11.20 hrs. at Manaswada Kundaim between the mini bus and one tanker which was coming in the opposite direction. She was sitting towards the driver side on the 5th seat from the driver. The said tanker came towards the side of the bus and gave a dash towards the driver side of the bus, as a result, she sustained injury to her mouth. She fell unconscious and she did not know as to what happened thereafter. She stated that her teeth had broken on account of the injury sustained by her. She could not state the registration number of the mini bus nor of the tanker. She regained consciousness at GMC Bambolim. She stated that she sustained injury as she was holding child on her lap. She stated that as a result of the impact, her face went and banged on the front seat where she was sitting. In the cross examination she stated that the police had come to her residence and had made inquiry about the accident. She narrated the same to the police. She stated that there were passengers standing in the aisle of the bus, but she could not state the number. She stated that the tanker and the bus were on the tar road at the time of the accident. She stated that there was a curve at the accident spot, to the road. She did not see which part of the tanker dashed against the bus. She claimed that the bus was on the left side of the road while proceeding to Ponda. She denied the suggestion that the bus went to the right side i.e. the wrong side of the road and dashed the tanker. She did not see which part of the tanker dashed against the bus. She claimed that the bus was on the left side of the road while proceeding to Ponda. She denied the suggestion that the bus went to the right side i.e. the wrong side of the road and dashed the tanker. She denied all other suggestions put on behalf of the accused, inter alia, to the effect that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the mini bus. 17. PW.4 Nasrin Beig stated that she was travelling in the mini bus on 14.2.2006 and she was proceeding towards Farmagudi, as she was doing her B. Ed. She stated that the mini bus was bearing registration No.GA-02/T-4634 and she was sitting on the third seat, on the left hand side of the bus. The bus was proceeding towards Ponda and was on the left side of the road. The bus was moving slowly. She noticed one tanker coming from the opposite direction, in fast speed. Immediately, thereafter, the tanker gave a dash to the bus in which she was travelling and it tilted in the trench on the left side of the road. After the dash, the tanker proceeded further in the same direction. The tanker gave dash towards the driver side of the bus. Due to the impact, her nose banged to the rod of the front seat and she sustained excessive bleeding injury from the nose. She also claimed that other passengers also sustained injuries. Somebody helped her to come out of the said bus. She noticed that the driver of the said tanker had also come to the spot. She identified the accused as the driver of the tanker. She also stated the registration number of the tanker. She further stated that thereafter all the injured were taken to GMC by GATES vehicle for treatment. In the cross examination she stated that in the hospital her details were taken by one policeman. She stated that six days later, one police inspector came to her residence and recorded her detailed statement as per her say, which was read over to her. She stated that there was no curve at the spot of the accident and there were no other vehicles besides the two vehicles. She stated that six days later, one police inspector came to her residence and recorded her detailed statement as per her say, which was read over to her. She stated that there was no curve at the spot of the accident and there were no other vehicles besides the two vehicles. She again confirmed that the bus was proceeding on its correct side i.e. on its left side when the accident took place. She further stated that both the drivers' sides i.e. the tanker as well as the bus, were damaged in the accident. She stated that it was possible that her statement was recorded on 2/3/2006. She denied the suggestion that her statement was not recorded as per her say or that she had never seen the tanker coming towards the bus or that the tanker dashed the bus. She denied the suggestion that she came to know about the accident after the impact. She denied the suggestion that the accident did not occur due to the dash given by the tanker to the bus. She also denied the suggestion that at the spot of accident there was a sharp turn. She also denied the suggestion that she had not suffered injuries or that other passengers had also not suffered injuries. 18. The prosecution also examined PW.1 Tukaram Dessai who claimed that he had acted as a panch witness for the panchanama at Kundaim conducted on 14/2/006, in respect of an accident between a mini bus and a tanker bearing registration No. GA-01/T-4634 and GA-01/2715. He stated that the mini bus was on the left side of Panaji-Ponda road and facing towards Ponda. The tanker was about half a kilometer away from the accident spot towards Panaji, on the left side of Ponda-Panaji road and facing towards Panaji. The mini bus was beyond the tar road, on the katcha road. The width of the road at the accident spot was about 8.20 metres. He claimed that he had seen some glass pieces broken on the tar road at a distance of about half a metre from the left side of the road if one proceeds towards Ponda. The distance from the point of impact to the mini bus would be about one metre. He claimed that there were tyre marks of about l.5 metres on the road. The distance from the point of impact to the mini bus would be about one metre. He claimed that there were tyre marks of about l.5 metres on the road. There was an electric pole at a distance of 18 metres from the mini bus and on the left side of the Ponda-Panaji road. The distance from the tar road to the trench on the left side of Panaji-Ponda road was about 2 to 2.5 metres. He did not remember other measurements taken by the police. At this stage, the witness was allowed to be cross examined by the learned Magistrate at the instance of the prosecution. In the cross examination, on behalf of the persecution, he admitted that there was one intersecting road on the left hand side if one proceeds towards Panaji and which goes to Manaswada. He admitted that the rear portion of the mini bus was seen at the time of panchanama outside the trench on the left side of Panaji-Ponda road. He also admitted that the distance from the left edge of the tar road to the point of impact was 2.30 metres on the left side of Panaji-Ponda road and on the right side there was a distance of 5.90 metres to the right edge of the road. He stated that the distance from the point of impact to the electric pole was 7.80 metres. He admitted that there was a katcha road of one metre on either side of the said road. He admitted that from the point of impact to the right side front tyre of the mini bus was 12.10 metres. He stated that the width of the road near the tanker was 7.30 metres. The distance from the right rear wheel of the tanker to the right side of the Ponda-Panaji road was 4.60 metres. The distance from the front right tyre of the tanker to the right side of Ponda-Panaji road was 4.80 metres. The distance from the right tyre of the mini bus to the right rear tyre of the tanker was 476.10 metres. He also admitted that the front wind screen glass of the mini bus was broken and the front right side show was in depressed condition. He also admitted that the front right side show of the tanker was damaged and the right side lights of the tanker were broken. He also admitted that the front wind screen glass of the mini bus was broken and the front right side show was in depressed condition. He also admitted that the front right side show of the tanker was damaged and the right side lights of the tanker were broken. He identified his signature at points “A” on the Panchanama Exhibit 11/C and Sketch Exhibit 12/C. In cross examination, on behalf of the accused, PW.1 stated that he did not know the owner of the bus involved in the accident. He claimed that other pancha was present at the spot where he was called for the panchanama. He did not know at what time the accident occurred. He claimed that the panchanama was written at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the owner of the mini bus was related to him and the other pancha witness and the owner of the bus brought him and the other pancha to the police station on the the next day and the panchanama and the sketch were signed on the next day at the police station. He denied the suggestion that he and the other pancha were not present at the spot at the time of panchanama. 19. A close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution, more particularly that of PW.2 Mohan Naik, the driver of the mini bus, discloses that his version in the examination-in-chief that the accused was trying to overtake the trolley and in the process the tanker dashed against the mini bus, has not been shaken in the cross examination. The finding recorded by the learned Magistrate that PW.2 Mohan Naik had not stated in the complaint about the overtaking of the trolley by the tanker is contrary to the record. A bare perusal of the complaint Exhibit 15/C discloses that such a statement is found in the complaint. The evidence of PW.2 Mohan Naik that he was driving the mini bus on the left side of the road also stands corroborated by two witnesses, viz. PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar and PW.4 Nasrin Beig, who were injured in the said accident. A bare perusal of the complaint Exhibit 15/C discloses that such a statement is found in the complaint. The evidence of PW.2 Mohan Naik that he was driving the mini bus on the left side of the road also stands corroborated by two witnesses, viz. PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar and PW.4 Nasrin Beig, who were injured in the said accident. In so far as PW.3 Sumitra Gaonkar is concerned, she has not made a reference to the overtaking of the trolley by the tanker and, in my opinion, rightly so because she was sitting towards the drivers side on the 5th seat from the driver and that she could not have seen the vehicles coming in the opposite direction. She admitted that she had not stated about overtaking of the trolley by the tanker at the time of the accident, discrediting her version lends assurance to PW.2. If she was travelling in the mini bus and having regard to the position in the bus, it could not be expected of her to see the vehicle coming in the opposite direction. 20. However, in so far as PW.4 who was sitting on 3rd seat on the left side of the bus is concerned, she has claimed that she saw the vehicle coming in the opposite direction in a fast speed. Her version lends corroboration to the evidence of PW.2 Mohan Naik. The version of PW.2 Mohan Naik which is corroborated by versions of PW.3 and PW.4 also stands corroborated by PW.1 Tukaram Dessai, pancha witness. No doubt he was declared hostile, but having regard to the settled law, the mere fact that the witness is declared hostile, the entire evidence of PW.1 which has absolutely not been shaken in the cross examination and which establishes that the mini bus had fallen in the trench on the left side of the road proceeding from Panaji-Ponda and the tanker was at a distance of about 475 metres away from the mini bus, cannot be discarded. The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur is strictly not applicable in criminal trials. Yet, from the established facts, it can be safely inferred that the accused was driving the tanker in a fast speed. The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur is strictly not applicable in criminal trials. Yet, from the established facts, it can be safely inferred that the accused was driving the tanker in a fast speed. No doubt, driving of a vehicle in a fast speed by itself would not amount to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver, but in the present case, as stated above, the evidence of three witnesses referred to above establishes that the mini bus was on the left side of the road and the accused who was driving the tanker dashed on the right side of the mini bus although PW.2 Mohan Naik was driving the mini bus on the left side of the road. Moreover, minibus was going up steep slope, whereas the tanker was coming down the slope. 21. No doubt, in the panchanama there is no reference to the presence of glass pieces; however, PW.1 has not been confronted with the panchanama to bring on record this discrepancy. Be that as it may, the mere fact that in the panchanama there is no reference to the glass pieces or the fact that the investigating officer has admitted that he has not mentioned the point of impact, by themselves, would not be sufficient to discredit the cogent evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 which inspires confidence. The versions of these three witnesses also stand corroborated by the evidence of PW.5 Vinod Arlekar, Motor Vehicle Inspector which clearly establishes that the brakes and the brake connection, steering, steering arms and connections, engine and engine control, gear box, differential, frames, wheels, axles, and springs of both the vehicles were in order and in intact condition and both the vehicles had suffered damages on the right hand sides. PW.5 produced report forms of both the vehicles Exhibit 22/C-colly which clearly lends corroboration to the version of PW.5. 22. In so far as evidence of PW.6, Suresh Kaskar, Head Constable is concerned, no doubt he admitted in the cross examination that he had not mentioned the point of impact in the panchanama, but, as stated above, this, by itself, would not be sufficient to hold in favour of the accused. 22. In so far as evidence of PW.6, Suresh Kaskar, Head Constable is concerned, no doubt he admitted in the cross examination that he had not mentioned the point of impact in the panchanama, but, as stated above, this, by itself, would not be sufficient to hold in favour of the accused. The present case is the one in which the prosecution has examined three witnesses who have consistently deposed about the manner in which the accident had occurred and there is absolutely no reason not to accept their version. 23. In so far as the finding given by the learned Magistrate that it could be a case of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker as well as the driver of the mini bus is concerned, Mr. Lawande is justified in placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karantaka (supra). In paragraph 20 of the Judgment, the Apex Court has observed thus: “... The learned authors Ratanlal & Dhirajlal in their Law Of Crimes, 22nd edition, page 812 have stated, 'The doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to criminal liability where the death of a person is caused partly by the negligence of the accused and partly by his own negligence. The doctrine of contributory negligence has no place in an indictment of criminal negligence'. They have further stated as 'a driver cannot absolve himself from the consequences of rash driving by merely showing that the person to whom or to whose property he has caused injury was himself negligent'. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel Shivraj Patil that the accident was also due to the driving of the van at a great speed by P.W.4, does not appeal to us in the least. The view reached by the trial Court, making much of this circumstance, is not anything else but perverse.” 24. Having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case, in my considered opinion, it could not be said that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of PW.2 Mohan Naik in driving the mini bus. The view reached by the trial Court, making much of this circumstance, is not anything else but perverse.” 24. Having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case, in my considered opinion, it could not be said that there was any rashness or negligence on the part of PW.2 Mohan Naik in driving the mini bus. In my considered view, the evidence led by the prosecution conclusively establishes that it was on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused that the accident occurred, resulting in causing injuries to six persons as deposed by PW.6 Suresh Kaskar, the Investigating Officer. He has produced the hurt certificates of six passengers, viz. (1) Kiran Gawade,(2) Amar Mangeshkar, (3) Mohan Naik, (4) Nasareen Baig, (5) Afforz Sayyad and (6) Sumitra Gaonkar who were travelling in the mini bus at the time of the accident. 25. It is settled law that interference in an appeal against acquittal by the appellate Court is possible only if the findings given by the trial Court are totally perverse and the view taken is totally unreasonable, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan (supra) relied upon by Mr. Menezes. In my view, the view taken by the learned Magistrate for acquitting the accused is patently unreasonable and the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are not upon proper marshalling of the evidence led by the prosecution. Therefore, in my opinion, this is a fit case in which interference is warranted. In my opinion, reasons given for acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC are unsustainable in law and, therefore, the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate deserves to be quashed and set aside. 26. Now coming to the sentence, it is the submission of Mr. Menezes that benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be given to the accused, since accused is hardly 30 years' old and the respondent-accused has no previous criminal record. 27. I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Menezes that the respondent-accused deserves to be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 27. I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Menezes that the respondent-accused deserves to be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. No doubt, the accused has no previous criminal record, but, it is a matter of common knowledge that vehicular accidents are on rise and, therefore, in my view, in such matters, a different view has to be taken and, as such, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the respondent-accused. In my considered view, interest of justice would be served by sentencing the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one day i.e. till rising of the Court for the Offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and further sentencing him to pay a fine and compensation to the six persons injured in the accident. 28. In the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The respondent-accused is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one day (till rising of the Court). Both the sentences shall run concurrently. In addition, the respondent-accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-under Section 279 IPC and, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. The respondent-accused accused is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. The respondent-accused is granted time of four weeks to deposit the compensation, as well as the fine amount in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Ponda. In the event the respondent-accused deposits the compensation, the same shall be paid in equal shares to the six injured passengers referred to in para 25 hereinabove. In the event, the respondent-accused does not deposit the fine and/or compensation amount within a period of four weeks, learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps to take the accused in custody to serve the in-default sentences imposed on him. The bail bond executed by the respondent shall stand discharged upon deposit of the compensation and the fine amount awarded. 29. Appeal stands disposed of.