1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.906 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Laxman Tukaram Wangate ..RESPONDENT ..... Mrs.B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for applicant. Mr.S.S. Halkude, advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 26th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mrs.B.R. Khekale, learned A.P.P. for applicant as well as Mr.S.S. Halkude, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant-State seeking leave to file appeal against judgment and order of acquittal, rendered by learned 6th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur in S.T.C.C. No.2409/2004, acquitting respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code 3. I have perused impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 15th October, 2009 as well as Record and Proceeding with the assistance of learned counsel for parties. 2 4. In short, the case of prosecution is that complainant namely, Pandurang Nagesh Khare lodged a complaint that when on 12th April, 2004 at about 7.30 p.m. his son namely Jaydev Khare and his one friend Somnath Swami were proceeding by motorcycle from Shivaji Chowk, Latur and when they arrived infront of Sahare Hospital, a Jeep bearing registration no.MH-24/F-1451 coming from Shivaji chowk, which was being driven by driver rashly and negligently gave forcible dash thereof to his son's motorcycle bearing no.MH-24/M-281, and therefore, his son Jaydev sustained fracture of his right leg, whereas pillion rider Somnath Swami sustained fracture to his right leg and right hand and also sustained abrasion etc as well as damaged motorcycle to the tune of Rs.23,000/-. 5. To substantiate the charges levelled against accused, th prosecution examined in as much as 10 witnesses, including both the victim namely Jaydev Khare-PW-4 and Somnath Swami- PW-8. However, after scrutinising the evidence on record, trial Judge observed that the complaint filed by complainant namely Pandurang Khare is on hearsay evidence, as well as none of the witnesses has stated that the said witnesses have witnessed the accused while driving Jeep in question, as well as the prosecution has not examined any independent witness, who is not related with the complainant and his son, and apparently, there is substance in the said observations made by the learned trial Judge. Moreover, although, P.W. 1 Vijay Bhosale has stated in his cross examination that the people assembled on the spot caught hold of the driver of Jeep; whereas, P.W. 5-Investigating Officer stated in his cross examination that the accused came to be 3 arrested on the next day evening. Besides that, victim Jaydev Khare has admitted in his cross examination that he was having learning licence at the time of driving the said vehicle. P.W. 8- Somnath Swami victim, who was pillion rider, has nowhere stated in his deposition that he is having permanent licence at the time of occurrence of incident. 6. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the view adopted by learned trial Judge after analysing and appreciating the evidence on record, is a possible view to be adopted and the reasoning given by learned trial Judge, appears to be logical and same can not be faulted with and same does not appear to be perverse, and therefore, no interference is warranted therein under the appellate jurisdiction. 7. In the result, present application being sans merit, stands dismissed and the leave to file appeal is refused. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri906.10