* 1 * Cri.Appln.869.2011 25.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 869 OF 2011 [FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL] The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant/Orig.Complainant V/S. Prabhakar Tukaram Shinde ...Respondent/Orig.Accused Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the applicant-State. None for the respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 25th August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This application is by the State of Maharashtra seeking leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th March, 2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vita, District-Sangli in S.C.C. No. 62 of 2010. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 17th November, 2009 at about 12.30 hrs at Mangrul in front of Saubai Temple, while respondent no.1 was removing planks from the trolley attached to the tractor, the tractor got pushed and its wheel ran over the deceased, Shivaji Chavan who was sitting on the other side of the road. * 2 * Cri.Appln.869.2011 25.8.2011 Respondent no.1 therefore was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 304A Indian Penal Code. It was further alleged against respondent no.1 that he drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner in contravention of the provisions of Section 146 without insuring the tractor and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The evidence led by the prosecution was limited to two witnesses i.e. P.W.1-a panch witness for spot panchanama and P.W.2-an eye witness. The panch witness did not support the prosecution and hence was declared hostile. Thereafter, the prosecution did not examine the second panch witness though available to the prosecution. Consequently, the spot panchanama could not be proved. The prosecution, similarly, did not examine the Medical Officer to establish the cause of death of the victim. Therefore the only witness whose evidence was to be considered by the trial Court was P.W.2. This witness also in his cross-examination gave certain admissions which were damaging to the prosecution. He admitted that the person sitting in the trolley had also sustained injuries. The prosecution had failed to explain the injuries of those persons. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge held that there was no sufficient material before him to establish the offence alleged against respondent no.1. Perusal of the * 3 * Cri.Appln.869.2011 25.8.2011 case papers completely support the observations of the learned trial judge. The same does not require any interference. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]