1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPR] No. 91 of 2011 with Criminal Revision Application [REVN] No. 58 of 2011 (Sushilabai W/o. Mahadeorao Solanke Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. A.A. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for non-applicant no.1/State. Mr. D.M. Surjuse, Advocate for non-applicant no.2. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE : 11 th OCTOBER, 2011. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. For the reasons stated in the application and treating the reasons to be good and sufficient, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Criminal Revision Application No. 58/2011 :- Heard. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, the revision application is taken up for final hearing. By the present revision application, the applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 16/06/2009, 2 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yeotmal, in Summary Criminal Case No. 1736/2008, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted non-applicant no.2 (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 112 read with Section 183 and 184 read with Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was the case of the prosecution that on 11/02/2008, an information was received to the Police Station Yeotmal (Rural) about an accident to one S.T. Bus near Cichburdi Shivar on Yeotmal-Ner Road. The police personnels, on reaching to the spot, found the vehicle standing at a wrong side of the road and the passengers of the vehicle were injured. They were shifted to nearby Primary Health Centre. One of the passengers viz. Sunil Mahadeorao Solanke succumbed to the injuries during the medial treatment. Non-applicant no.2-Nanaji Vitthalrao Thapkase was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and was charged for the above mentioned offences. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it reveals that the evidence brought on record was properly appreciated by the learned Court below. The panch- witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The witness viz. Narendra Kinake, who was the 3 conductor of the said S.T. Bus, stated in his testimony that though the said vehicle bus was involved in the accident, the same was not due to any negligence by the accused driver, but in effort to save the vehicle from the truck, which was coming from opposite direction, accident took place. The said witness Narendra Kinake was also one of the injured victim of the said accident. In his testimony, he further stated that as the truck driver failed to show any signal and has not used dipper lights, the driver of the bus i.e. the accused/non-applicant no.2 was not at fault. The learned Court below also found that the investigating agency has failed to collect any evidence about the said truck. The investigation carried out by the investigating officer was in a causal manner. The other documentary evidence i.e. Inquest-Panchnama, C.A. Report and other documents, do not support the case of the prosecution. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and acquitted the accused. No ground is coming forth to upset the impugned order and judgment. The impugned judgment and order cannot be termed to be a perverse or illegal one. On considering the impugned judgment and order and after hearing the learned Advocates for the respective 4 parties, I am of the opinion that the present revision application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. Hence, the revision application is rejected and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *sdw