cr.appln2552-10 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2552 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs Sadashiv Arjun Mirzi .. Respondent Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 9th AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI]: 1. The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 237 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e original accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Sections 304, 279 and 427 of the IPC and Sections 184 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: On 15.05.2008, Rajraram Bhujbal (deceased) was riding 1 cr.appln2552-10 his two wheeler bearing No. MH-06/E 6256. At about 5.10 p.m., he reached Bhairavnath Weigh Bridge. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, at that time, was driving a tanker from the wrong side and the tanker gave dash to the two wheeler of Rajaram. Due to this, Rajaram fell down and received injury on the head. He died due to injury to the head, therefore, FIR came to be lodged against the accused. 3. Charge under Sections 304, 279 and 427 of IPC and Sections 184 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be framed against the accused person to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. 4. We have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. We have also perused the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. 5. PW1 Kashinath Bhujbal is the complainant in the present case. This witness was not present at the spot at the time 2 cr.appln2552-10 of incident, therefore, his evidence is not of much help to the prosecution. 6. According to the prosecution, PW 2 Somnath Chavhan and PW 3 Hanumant Rasal are the eye witnesses to the said incident. It is pertinent to note that PW 2 in his cross- examination has admitted that the two wheeler vehicle of the deceased gave dash at the cleaner side of the stationary tanker. Even after explaining the question to this witness, he again gave the same reply. He has also admitted that he went to police station to lodge his complaint on the second day. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, some doubt is created in the mind i.e whether the tanker really dashed the two wheelers or whether the two wheeler gave dash to a tanker which was stationary? 7. PW 3 Hanumant Rasal, in his examination-in-chief has stated that while Rajaram Bhujbal was going to Shikrapur on his M-80 vehicle. one tanker came from opposite side and gave a dash to the vehicle of Rajaram. Due to this, Rajaram was thrown on the road and he sustained injuries. However, in cross-examination of this witness, it has been brought on record that what was stated by him before the police was that the tanker was parked on the spot of the incident. He denied that any such portion was stated by him in his statement 3 cr.appln2552-10 before the police. This contradiction was put to this witness in his cross-examination and marked "A" and got proved by the defence. It clearly shows that the tanker was parked at the spot of the incident. Thus, it is clear that it was not the tanker which gave dash to the two wheeler of the deceased but it was the two wheeler of the deceased which gave dash to the tanker which at the relevant time was stationary i.e parked on the spot of the incident. All these and other facts have been taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondent accused. 8. We may make here useful reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Dinesh, 2009(3) SCALE 345 wherein in case of appeal against acquittal, it has been held as under: "Cr.P. Code 302 - Appeal against acquittal - Held. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record - the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by trial court." Thus, when two conclusions can be arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record, the conclusion which is favourable to accused should be accepted. Looking to the evidence on record, we find that conclusion arrived at by the 4 cr.appln2552-10 learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible one. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. 9. In view of the above, leave to file appeal, is refused. Application is rejected. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 5