JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, A Court, Ponda upon a trial in Criminal Case No.9/S/2008/A before her. 2. The facts, which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: According to the prosecution, on the incidental day, regular driver of Bus No. GA-01-W-4449 owned by P.W.3-Nancy Gomes, was not available and, therefore, the respondent was asked to drive the bus. At about 6.30 a.m., when the bus, which was proceeding from Ponda to Margao, reached Borim, the Bus gave dash to the victim Suchita Naik. Suchita was standing on the left hand side of the road. She sustained injuries and was shifted to Hospital. The respondent fled from the spot. Police were informed. They came to the spot, performed panchanama of spot and registered the offence. The victim had died and after performance of inquest on body of the victim, the body was sent for postmortem examination. Postmortem examination revealed that the victim had severe injuries to chest and abdomen as a result of blunt force impact by an object or surface consequent to vehicular accident. Police caused the bus to be examined by Motor Vehicle Inspector, recorded statement of witnesses and on completion of investigation, sent the chargesheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. 3. Learned Magistrate explained the particulars of offence to the respondent. Since the respondent pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial, at which the prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the respondent. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence of denial and false implication, the learned Magistrate held that it was not proved that the respondent was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, proceeded to acquit him. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and with his help, I have gone through the evidence on record. 5. PW1-Suraj Naik is a Panch at the panchanama of spot vide exhibit 13 accompanied by a sketch which was drawn up by PW9- Head Constable Vishnu Jadhav. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and with his help, I have gone through the evidence on record. 5. PW1-Suraj Naik is a Panch at the panchanama of spot vide exhibit 13 accompanied by a sketch which was drawn up by PW9- Head Constable Vishnu Jadhav. He states that panchanama was commenced at about 9.15 a.m. and was completed at 10.15 a.m. The panchanama shows the position of the Bus on the road and also observes that the front portion of the Bus, possibly windshield, was broken. The portion of the above left headlight was dented. The paint on that portion had peeled off. The front bumper was also bent. It however does not mention that any bags were found stored in the cabin of the Bus. Even PW1 -Suraj Naik does not state that he noticed any bags in the cabin of the Bus. PW1-Suraj Naik stated that he knew the victim, who was running a shop at Borim and who was residing in his neighbourhood. The sketch of the scene of offence which accompanies the panchanama and which is proved by this witness as also PW9-Head Constable Vishnu Jadhav, would show that the width of the road was 6.50 metres. The Bus was on the left hand side of the road as it was going from Ponda to Margao leaving about 0.55 metres of the road on the left hand side and 3.80 metres to 4 metres on the right hand side. Beyond the edges of the road, there was 1.30 metres wide foot path. The sketch shows ‘the Impact of accident spot’ on this foot path about 30.60 metres behind the Bus. It does not show any stains of blood at the impact of accident spot and blood stains are observed on the road surface itself may be about 7 to 8 metres from the impact of accident spot as per the measurement in the sketch. 6. PW2-Bharat Naik was a Panch at the inquest of the body of the victim which he proved at exhibit 17. PW8-Dr. Fernandes, who conducted postmortem examination, proved the notes which are at exhibit 31. They did not show any major injury to the head. There are only grazed abrasions, which have not resulted in any fracture. Dr. 6. PW2-Bharat Naik was a Panch at the inquest of the body of the victim which he proved at exhibit 17. PW8-Dr. Fernandes, who conducted postmortem examination, proved the notes which are at exhibit 31. They did not show any major injury to the head. There are only grazed abrasions, which have not resulted in any fracture. Dr. Fernandes noticed mid shaft fracture to right humerus and fracture of 4th to 9th ribs on the right side and 5th to 9th ribs of the left side of chest. 7. The evidence of PW3-Nancy Gomes and PW4-Vishesh Naik would show that at the time of incident, the respondent was driving the Bus. PW5-Sandeep Bhat seems to be son-in-law of PW3-Nancy Gomes and his evidence is insignificant. 8. PW6-Motor Vehicle Inspector Vinod Arlekar states that he noticed that "wheel seal glass" (possibly windshield) of the minibus was broken. He also observed that if the vehicle like minibus dashes to pedestrian such damage can be caused to minibus. PW9-Head Constable Vishnu Jadhav performed panchanama of spot and also gave report at exhibit 33. The report at exhibit 33 refers to presence of bags in the left hand side cabin of the driver which blocked left side view of the driver. But curiously, there is no such reference to bags in the panchanama of spot or in the evidence of said panch. PW9Vishnu Jadhav states that the victim had already been shifted from spot to Hospital for treatment when he reached at the spot when he performed the panchanama of spot. He stated that Deepak Borkar showed him the spot of accident. 9. This Deepak Borkar has been examined as PW7, who claims to have been eye-witness to the incident. He stated that he noticed the victim standing on the left hand side of the road as one proceeds from Ponda to Margao. He stated that he was about 15 metres away from the victim. The minibus came and gave dash to the victim and went ahead about 30 metres and then stopped on the left hand side of the road. The victim was thrown to the distance at about 15 metres as a result of the impact. The victim was initially standing on the katcha road. He stated in examination-in-chief that he accompanied the victim to Hospital. He also stated that the cabin of the driver was full of bags. The victim was thrown to the distance at about 15 metres as a result of the impact. The victim was initially standing on the katcha road. He stated in examination-in-chief that he accompanied the victim to Hospital. He also stated that the cabin of the driver was full of bags. He stated that the driver fled from the spot. While in examination-in-chief, he stated that he had accompanied the victim to the Hospital, in cross-examination, he took somersault and stated that he remained at the spot when the injured was taken for medical treatment in a vehicle. This was possibly because he had to be present to show the spot to the police. Towards the end of its cross-examination, he stated that the victim was waiting to cross the road. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this evidence was sufficient to conclude that the respondent drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and gave dash to the lady, who was standing by the said road waiting to cross the road. He submitted that the learned Magistrate was not justified in acquitting the accused on the basis of above evidence. 11. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted because of the doubts about the evidence of PW7 - Deepak Borkar. Deepak claims to have seen the accident and also shown the spot to the police. It cannot be forgotten that he also stated in his examination-in-chief that he had accompanied the victim to the Hospital, which was about 35 Kilometres away and, therefore, he could not have been present when the panchanama of spot was conducted, since PW9-Head Constable Vishnu Jadhav stated that when he reached the spot, the victim had already been shifted to Hospital. Now if PW7 - Deepak Borkar could not have shown the spot of accident, the sketch of the spot which is drawn up by PW9-Vishnu Jadhav would become suspect. The sketch is suspicious not only because of the absence of Deepak Borkar when the panchanama was drawn up, but also because of the "impact of accident spot", which is shown on katcha road or the foot path appears to be imaginary. Blood stains were observed at the surface of the road several metres ahead of the so called impact of accident spot. Blood stains were observed at the surface of the road several metres ahead of the so called impact of accident spot. The story which is sought to be made out, namely that Bus driven by the respondent gave dash in a high speed and threw the victim some metres away on the road, cannot be believed because the injuries which Dr; Fernandes has observed in the notes of postmortem examination, would be inconsistent with the victim being thrown to a distance of about 7 metres from the place where she was standing. It may be recalled that the victim had fractures only to ribs and shaft of humerus. There was no injury on the head. If a person is thrown by impact of motor vehicle to a distance of about 7 metres i.e. 21 feet, and falls on the road surface, the head would definitely have serious injuries. But except for grazed abrasions, there were no injuries to the head. There was no fracture to skull. Therefore, the sketch which forms panchanama at exhibit 13 is suspicious. If this imaginary foundation of the case is removed, there is nothing to hold that the victim was in fact standing by the side of the road when she was given a dash by the vehicle driven by the respondent. 12. This is not all, the prosecution wants the Court to believe that because of the dash of one person to the bus, the windshield of the bus was broken and the front portion of the bumper got dented. One could imagine the height of the windshield from the ground as also the place of bumper. Since the victim had injuries mainly to her chest, which is not a hard part of the body which could dent the bumper of the motor vehicle, it is clear that the police are coming with some imaginary case and hiding something from the Court. Learned Magistrate, therefore, was justified in refusing to believe the said story. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is perfectly proper and probable and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.