1 cr-apln-2527-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2527 OF 2010 (FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL) The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant [Ori.Complainant] Vs. Prakash Dhondiram Magdum ..Respondent [Ori.Accused] .... Smt. M.M.Deshmukh APP for the Applicant-State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 P.C. : 1 Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.1.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Kagal in S.C.C.No. 669 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e. accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Sections 279, 338 of IPC and under Sections 134(1)(B) and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2 cr-apln-2527-10 3 The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 21.11.2007 at about 9 p.m. PW 2 Vilas was proceeding on Pune Banglore Highway on his motor cycle bearing No.MH-09/AX/8244. At that time, the tractor which was driven by the accused gave dash to his motor cycle and caused fracture of his leg. Hence, FIR came to be lodged. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent-accused. 4 I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also perused the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. 5 Prosecution has examined only two witnesses. PW 2 Vilas is the injured witness. He has admitted that he cannot state how the accident occurred. In addition, he has stated that he came to know the name of the tractor driver and number of the tractor from the police. 3 cr-apln-2527-10 Thus, the evidence of this witness does not show that the respondent- accused drove his vehicle in a reckless and dangerous manner and gave dash to the motor cycle of PW 2 Vilas. 6 PW 1 Vijay is an independent eye witness to the accident, however, he has stated that on 21.11.2007 at 9.15 a.m. he saw that the accident had occurred and many people had gathered on the spot. He has admitted that he had not seen how the accident had occurred. Thus, his evidence is of no help to the case of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate has considered all these facts and thereafter acquitted the accused. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 7 The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different plausible view may arise on the evidence. It has been so observed by the Supreme Court in K.Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1428. 4 cr-apln-2527-10 8 So also, the Supreme Court in the case of C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. I have already observed that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. 9 In view of the above, application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]