1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95/2007. Umashankar @ Dattatraya Vasudeo Kulkarni. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Kishor Maruti Athare and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.NC Garud, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KD Bade Patil, Advocate for Resp.No.1; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 26th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of parties. 2) The acquittal in S.T.C.No. 332/2002 for an offence under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 of IPC and under Section 3 r/w Section 180 and 134 r/w 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathardi, dated 3rd February, 2007 is subject of challenge by the complainant. 3) The learned Judge, based on evidence of PW 1 – complainant, who was plying moped 2 motorcycle, viz., M-80, recorded PW-1 had though claimed to see the accused, an rickshaw driver, as he knows the accused, however, he did not state immediately after the accident or even subsequently about the accused to be plying Auto rickshaw. It was only after 2nd May, 2002, belatedly, the complainant says he learnt that it was the accused herein, who was involved in the accident. Thus, complainant did not see the Accused. 4) P.W.3 – Haribhau s/o Narayan Chavan was a pillion rider on the motorcycle, which was following the auto rickshaw at the material time. He had no occasion to see the driver, who was plying the auto-rickshaw. He could not state even having seen registration number of the offending vehicle. In the situation, evidence of PW-3 could not accelerate contention of the complainant of involvement of the accused. 5) Seizure of the vehicle by itself will not be a ground to implicate the accused as the seizure is on 1.5.2002 while the accident in question has taken place on 22.4.2002. Any damage to the vehicle/auto rickshaw by itself will not be a indication as parameter of its involvement or of involvement of the accused in the alleged accident. 6) The statement of the accused recorded by Police inculpating himself cannot be coined to 3 base conviction. The findings recorded by the learned Judge are not flowing contrary to the record. No perversity, nor any infirmity. No interference is warranted. Criminal Revision dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv95.07