Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2329 (BOM)

State v. Deepak Gaonkar

2012-12-13

U.V.BAKRE

body2012
Judgment : 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sanguem in Criminal Case No. 3/S/2009. 2. The said Criminal Case was culmination of a charge sheet filed by Curchorem Police Station against the respondent (accused) alleging that on 22/04/2008 at 11.30 hours at Ambeudak Sanvordem, the respondent drove a Tipper Truck bearing registration no. GA-01-W-6952 in rash and negligent manner endangering human lives and gave dash to on coming Hero Honda Passion Motorcycle bearing no. GA-09-B-3357 thereby causing grievous hurt to the rider of the Motorcycle namely Prakash Yadav. The respondent( accused) was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW1 – Abhay Naik, who was Motor Vehicle Inspector, at the relevant time, had inspected the Truck and the Motorcycle and had issued the Accident Report Forms, which are part of Exhibit C-10 colly. PW 2 -Prakash Yadav is the injured. PW-3 Viresh Myageri acted as one of the panch witnesses for the panchnama of the scene of accident and sketch, which are at Exhibit C-13 colly. PW.4 – Niedade Antao is the owner of the said Truck which met with the accident. PW 5-Dr. Megha Kudchadkar, the Medical Officer at the Curchorem Public Health Centre, examined the injured Prakash Yadav and issued Hurt Certificate, which is Exhibit C-15. PW 6 – Mohan Naik was proceeding towards Sanvordem side by his motorcycle at the time of accident and had shifted PW2 to the hospital. PW 7 -Pedro Antonio Fernandes, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Curchorem Police Station and PW8 – Prakash Naik, the Head Constable attached to the same Police Station are the investigating officers. 4. Upon analysis of the entire evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found that neither PW 2 -Prakash Yadav, who is the injured nor PW 6 -Mohan Naik, who is the other eye witness had identified the driver of the truck which caused the accident. Respondent i.e. the accused therefore came to be acquitted. 5. Heard Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the Respondent. 6. Respondent i.e. the accused therefore came to be acquitted. 5. Heard Mr. S. R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the Respondent. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Truck involved in the accident was at the spot after the accident and the panchanama of the scene of accident and sketch (Exh. C-13 colly), duly proved by the evidence of PW.3, shows that its registration number is GA-01-W-6952 and that the same was on the wrong side of the road, with the motorcycle bearing No. GA-09-B-3357, lying beneath the right front portion of the said Truck. He further stated that the evidence of PW.1, the Motor Vehicles Inspector proves that the said Truck had scratches at the right hand side front bumper and the Motorcycle had damages at the front portion. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW.3, the owner of the said Truck proves that the accused was the driver of the said Truck at the time of accident. He submitted that the evidence of PW.2 -the injured read with that of PW.6 and of PW.5 – the medical Officer was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. He, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and order be quashed and set aside and the accused be convicted and sentenced for the offences with which he has been charged. 7. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent (accused) mainly contended that the identity of the driver of the Truck which met with the accident is not at all established and hence there is no scope for interference with the impugned judgment and order. 8. Perused the entire oral and documentary evidence on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties. 9. It is seen from the evidence of PW 2 -Prakash Yadav, the injured, that though he has narrated as to how the accident took place and about other details, however he has neither stated the registration number of the Truck which gave dash to the Motorcycle ridden by him nor has he stated as to who was driving the said truck. PW2 has not identified the respondent/ accused as the driver of the said Truck. 10. PW2 has not identified the respondent/ accused as the driver of the said Truck. 10. The other eye witness namely PW 6 -Mohan Naik had heard sound from the back and had seen a person lying on the road and also the Truck parked on the wrong side of the road. He stated that one person was at the spot and he asked that person as to who was driving the Truck and the said person told him that he was driving the said truck. However, unfortunately, PW 6 could not identify the said person who had told him that he was driving the said truck. Even PW6 has not stated the registration number of the said truck. 11. PW4-Niedade Antao is the owner of the Tipper Truck bearing registration No. GA-01-W-6952 and according to him, the accused was driving the said truck, since last about six months prior to his deposition. However, admittedly, PW4 was not present at the spot at the time of accident and due to that he could not tell as to who was driving the said Truck at the relevant time. A suggestion has been put to PW4 that his statement that the accused was driving the truck at the relevant time, is false. Though he has denied this suggestion, however it is obvious that he would not be in a position to tell as to who was driving the said Truck at the time of accident. 12. No other witness examined by the prosecution has identified the said Truck as the one which met with accident and/or the accused as the driver of that Truck at the time of accident. 13. In the circumstances above, the finding of the learned trial Magistrate that neither the accused can be pinpointed as driver of the Truck nor the Truck can be pinpointed as the one which gave dash to PW2-Prakash Yadav, is not only a possible view but is the only conclusion which can be drawn. 14. The impugned judgment and order is therefore in accordance with the settled principles of Criminal Law and there is no scope for interference. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.