1 cr­apln­2517­10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2517 OF 2010 (FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant [Ori.Complainant] Vs. Ajit Raosaheb Jadhav ..Respondent .... Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for the Applicant-State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1 Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Kagal in S.C.C. No. 682 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e. accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Section 279 and 337 of the IPC. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 9.2.2008 at 2 cr­apln­2517­10 about 6.30 p.m. PW 2 Gopal was returning on his motor cycle from Kagal. When he came near the M.S.E.B. Office, a Maruti car came from backside and dashed his motor cycle. He fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, FIR came to be lodged. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the respondents- accused. 3 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. 4 Though the incident had occurred on 9.2.2008, it is noticed that the FIR was lodged only on 12.2.2008. The prosecution has not furnished any reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. This assumes special significance in view of the fact that the police station was situated at a distance of 2 kms. away from the spot of the accident. 3 cr­apln­2517­10 5 PW 2 Gopal is the injured witness and PW 1 Anand and PW 3 Arun are eye witnesses. It has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW Nos. 1 and 3 that they are closely related to PW 2 Gopal. Both these witnesses have not given any satisfactory explanation as to how they were present at the spot at the time of the accident. Looking to their evidence, their evidence appears to be doubtful about their presence at the spot of the accident. 6 As far as involvement of the respondent-accused is concerned, PW 2 Gopal has stated that he came to know the name of the accused from the other people. PW 1 Anand has also deposed that he came to know about the name of the accused from some other people. PW 3 Arun is the person who lodged the Wardi report about this accident to the police station. It is pertinent to note that this Wardi report was lodged on 12.2.2008 in which the name of the accused does not find place. Looking to the evidence on record, it is noticed that there is no direct evidence to show that it was the respondent-accused who drove the maruti car in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the incident. It may also be stated here that panch witness PW 4 Mahaveer has turned hostile. He has deposed that he has signed the spot 4 cr­apln­2517­10 panchnama at the police station. Thus, looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible one. 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. 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 Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. 5 cr­apln­2517­10 9 In view of the above, application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]