1 APEAL.1080-2006.sxw acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1080 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Apppellant. Vs. Manish Mahendra Khatau ...Respondent. ---- Mr. P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P. for the Applicant- State. Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Mr. Ayaz Bilawala i/b M/s Bilawala & Col, for the Respondent. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2011. P.C.:- 1 Heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the applicant- State, and learned counsel for the respondent. 2 Leave was granted on 26.10.2006. 3 The Applicant-State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Ad-Hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Doe 2 APEAL.1080-2006.sxw Greater Bombay at Sewree. By the said judgment and order dated 26.4.2006, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Applicant-State has preferred this appeal. 4 Brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as under: The respondent was driving a car on 14.8.2005 at Marine Drive, Mumbai and Police Constable Shri Rokade was attached to the Traffic Department. PW-1 PSI Shri Shivalkar had placed barricades on the said road at about 2.50 a.m. At that time, the respondent’s car came there. The respondent was asked to divert his car to Lane No.3 and due to signal given by the Police Constable, the car slowed down. However, thereafter respondent abruptly started going towards Lane Nos.1 and 2 and at this junction the barricades were placed and as such his car dashed the barricades which were placed near Lane No.3 and one of the barricade struck Police Constable Shri Rokade, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries to his head. According to the prosecution, the respondent tried to escape from the spot. However, he was intercepted by the Police 3 APEAL.1080-2006.sxw and he was taken in custody. The said Police Constable Shri Rokade was sent for medical treatment. An F.I.R. was registered vide CR No.225/2005. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. The Trial Court, after perusing the evidence which is on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case against the respondent. The respondent was, therefore, acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned A.P.P. has taken us to the judgment and order. We have gone through it. We have perused the notes of evidence of the Trial Court. In our view, there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. It is well settled position in law that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr. P.C. , this Court is not expected to substitute the view taken by the Trial Court if the Trial Court has given cogent reason and has properly appreciated the evidence on record. If the Trial Court has taken one view, the High Court is not expected to substitute the view taken by the Trial Court and convict the accused. 6. In the present case, the evidence which is on record clearly establishes that the applicant was not under the influence of the alcohol or 4 APEAL.1080-2006.sxw any prohibited substance. From the statements of the witnesses which were brought on record it is established that the accused did not run away and stopped his car after his car was dashed to one of the barricades which were placed at the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant deliberately dashed his car on the Police Constable. The Trial Court, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in brining home a charge against the applicant under Section 307 or Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. The injuries were superficial. PW No.8 admitted in his cross that the injuries mentioned in Column No.4 of the Exhibit-26 was superficial though it was in the skull. PW-6 has also not stated that the injury caused to the Police Constable was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. In any case, the said injury appears to have been caused as a result of the said barricades hitting the Police Constable and therefore no intention on the part of the respondent to cause injury the Police Constable. In our view, the view taken by the Trial Court is correct view. Appeal, therefore, is dismissed. 7. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, a suggestion was made by the Court that certain compensation should be paid by the respondent to the Police Constable and accordingly, the respondent also 5 APEAL.1080-2006.sxw showed his willingness to pay the compensation. However, during the pendency of this appeal, the said Police Constable Shri Rokade died of natural causes. Today the wife of Police Constable Shri Rokade is present in the Court. The respondent, his family and his parents are also present in the court and have brought two Pay Orders, one of Rs.5,00,000/- and another is of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation. The said Pay Orders have been handed over to the wife of the said Police Constable in our presence. 8. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Criminal Application No.57 of 2007 filed by the applicant does not survive. Bail Bonds shall stand cancelled. 9. Interim directions given by this court on 24.1.2007 also stand vacated. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)