1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2108 OF 2007 Bhupendra Chagganlal Tailor ..Applicant V/s. Lahorilal Khemraj Jain & anr. ..Respondents Mr.S.G.Kurup, Advocate, for applicant None for respondent No.1 Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. Perused the evidence of Police Officer and other witnesses. In a traffic accident on foot path brother of applicant succumbed to injury on 7th October, 1998. Panchanama for the event was drawn. Police constable Chandrakant Navghire took the dead body to hospital. According to him, on the next date the owner of the vehicle i.e.accused was arrested. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded that there is nothing to reveal as to 2 whether the accused came to be traced as the driver of the vehicle and connected with the offence. The panchanama relating to seizure of the car was drawn on 8th October, 1998 is of no consequence for the prosecution to draw an inference that accused must be car driver who caused accident. P.W.4 recorded the details of injuries on the dead body. P.W.5 was station house duty officer after getting message went to the spot and carried investigation. According to him, on 8th October, 1998 at about 7.00 P.M P.I.Deshmukh produced the accused before him. However, there is nothing to suggest as he is not examined as to at what time or at whose instance the accused came to be arrested. P.W.6 was on night duty as Duty Station House Officer at Vile Parle Police Station and having received a message at 20.00 hours from Control room about the accident happened on Western Express Highway, Eastern Side, Shriram Nagar, Vile Parle he went to the said place along with other police staff where he found a dead body of male aged 50 years in injured condition. He drew Spot Panchanama (Exh.P-2). He could not get eye witness at the spot of occurrence. He 3 simply registered the offence on the complaint of P.W.2 Chandrakant Navghire. Statement of Traffic Police Constable about the part of the number plate found was recorded. However, said Police Constable could not be examined by the prosecution as the part of the number plate could not be produced in the Court nor there is any evidence to that effect as to what has happened to the said broken number plate. 3. The evidence of six witnesses even if taken together does not lead to the conclusion that it was accused who was driving the vehicle or that he was instrumental in accident occurred on 7th October, 1998. It is apparent that basic link in the investigation is missing to clamp the same to fasten liability against the accused. The helplessness shown by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in acquitting accused in the set of evidence adduced before him, depicts sorry state of affairs in the matter due to slackness on the part of the investigating agency. However, at this stage of the matter after acquittal on 31st July, 2003, 4 the evidence referred above does not warrant to grant leave to appeal as contemplated under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, application is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)