[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3293 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Shri.Avinash Madhav Mane ..Respondent ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for Applicant-State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 DATE : APRIL 24, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and order as well as the record in the present case. [-2-] 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: . P.W.1 Nandkumar Shelar and his wife Puja had gone for evening walk by Yelgud Hupari road. They were walking on the clay road which is to the left side of the tar road. At that time, the accused came from behind riding Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No.MH 09 AD 1422. He was driving the said motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and he gave dash to Puja from the back which caused serious injuries. Puja died due to cranio cerebral injury. 4. The learned Judge has acquitted the Respondent-accused as he was of the opinion that the prosecution has not established that at the time of the accident, it was the Respondent-accused who gave dash with motor-cycle to Puja. Prosecution case rests on the evidence of two eye witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Nandkumar and P.W.3 Jalindar. P.W.1 Nandkumar has admitted in clear terms that till filing of the report, he did not know the person or the vehicle which gave dash to his wife. [-3-] The station diary entry also shows that on 28.12.2003 Nandkumar informed the Hupari Police Station that an unknown motor-cycle driver dashed against his wife and she was admitted in the hospital at Kolhapur. The name of the motor-cycle driver or registration number of the motor cycle were not informed to the police. The other eye witness P.W.3 Jalindar has stated that he was at a distance of 100 to 150 feet from the place of incident. The incident had occurred at 9 p.m. i.e. during night hours. None of the witnesses deposed about any street light available on the spot so also spot panchnama does not show that there was any light at the spot. In such case, it would be difficult for P.W.3 Jalindar to have identified the accused in the darkness from a distance of about 150 feet. Both P.W.1 Nandkumar and P.W.3 Jalindar do not say that they knew the accused since before the occurrence of the accident. No test identification parade was held in the present case and the witnesses have directly identified the accused in the Court. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge did not think fit to rely on the identification of the accused by the witnesses directly in the Court. It is an admitted fact that [-4-] motor cycle does not stand in the name of the accused but it stands in the name of one Nishant Manik, who is the owner of the motor cycle. Moreover, the motor cycle was not seized from the accused but it was seized from infront of the house of one Imran Mulla. 5. Looking to the above facts, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution failed to establish that it was the accused who gave dash of his motor cycle to Puja, is a reasonable and possible view. 6. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on [-5-] record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]