Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1396 (BOM)

Shekhar Prataprao Matkar v. Kishor Thansing Pawar

2014-07-01

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2014
JUDGMENT :- Present Revision is filed by Shekhar Prataprao Matkar, who suffered injuries in the accident, dated 17.4.2002. According to the prosecution, on 17.4.2002, the present applicant and one Ishwar were returning to Khed Digar from Mhasvad on motor cycle. When they reached near Sultanpura Fata, present non-applicant no.1 /accused gave dash to the motor cycle of present applicant resulting into the fracture to his left leg. Crime No. 27 of 2002 was registered against the non-applicant. Charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 134, 177, 181 and 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses. The applicant was examined as Prosecution Witness No.1. As per the first information report (Exh.10) lodged by the present applicant while returning to Khed Digar from Mhasvad, one unidentified motor cyclist came from opposite direction and gave dash to the motor cycle of the applicant. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada vide judgment and order, dated 25.6.2007 in S.T.C.C. No. 902 of 2002 was pleased to acquit the applicant for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 134, 177, 181 and 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as well as learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1. With their assistance, I have gone through the order impugned herein. 5. On appreciation of evidence of PW I present applicant, the court below has found variance on the material particulars. Learned counsel also found that the evidence of the present applicant is absolutely silent about the speed and manner of driving of the motor cycle by the present non-applicant no.1. The court below on appreciation of the evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the non-applicant no. 1. 6. From the perusal of the impugned Judgment, it is clear that there is no fault in the order of acquittal, passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, present Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. Revision application dismissed.