1 appln.878-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 878 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant. Vs. Vishnu Shankar Chavan . ..Respondent. ----- Mrs. Geeta P. Mulekar, APP for the Applicant-State. ---- CORAM: M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. AUGUST 17, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mrs. Mulekar, learned APP for the applicant-State. 2 Perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court has acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC, and Section 181 read with Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act., 1988 2 appln.878-2011 3 It is alleged that at the time of incident the respondent was driving the motorcycle without requisite licence. It is further alleged that he had been driving motorcycle bearing registration no. MH-10-X-9904 in rash and negligent manner on a public road and gave dash to Mrs. Parubai. He had caused injuries to Mrs. Parubai by driving the vehicle in such a manner. 4 It appears from the judgment of the learned trial court that there were eye-witnesses to the incident. Some of the witnesses have stated that injured Mrs. Parubai was standing on eastern side of the road, and some of the witnesses had stated that she was standing on the western side of the road. However, the fact remains that she was crossing the road at the time of incident. The defence of the respondent was that she had fallen down on her own as she was hurriedly crossing the road and that respondent was not responsible for the injuries caused to the injured Parubai. 5 Considering the nature of the injuries described in the judgment, it can be said that the learned trial court has erred in accepting 3 appln.878-2011 the defence of the respondent. The incident had occurred in a village where there was no traffic signal system. Therefore, the driver of auto-vehicle has to be careful enough while driving the vehicle on a public road. The learned trial court has not examined as to what extent the respondent was responsible for the incident. The judgment is unnecessarily verbose. The trial court has acquitted the respondent of the charge of the offence punishable under Section 181 read with Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced by the State. 6 In my view, the learned trial court should have examined whether the Section 106 of the Evidence Act was applicable in the circumstances of the case. The fact of holding or otherwise of driving licence was especially within the knowledge of the respondent, and therefore, he was under obligation to explain the same. This issue was not discussed by the trial court at all. In my view this is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the order passed by the trial court. 7 Leave to appeal is granted. Criminal Application stands disposed off. 4 appln.878-2011 8 Appeal be registered and admitted. R. and P. be called. 9. Issue notice to the respondent. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.)