Sns 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant. v/s. Prakash K. Kharat ..Respondent. Mr. Y.S.Shinde, APP for the Applicant/State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 20th September, 2011 PC : 1 The State has preferred this application seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal in SCC No.570 of 2007 under Sections 279, 304A, 337, 338, 427 IPC and Under Sections 184, 134 r/w section 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the J.M.F.C., Miraj. 2 Heard the learned APP. The impugned judgment reveals that the prosecution had examined in all four witnesses P.W.1 Sambhaji was driving motor-cycle, which was dashed by truck coming from opposite side in high speed. Due to said dash, motor cycle fell down and Balu @ Sanjay R. Hankare , who was on the pillion seat of the motorcycle suffered injuries on the head and died. P.W.1 Sambhaji was also injured. P.W.2 was driving a jeep , which was following the motorcycle. According to P.W.2 after they reached the spot, they came to know that motorcycle was dashed by the truck coming from opposite side. P.W.3 Balasaheb Jadhav was panch Sns 2 witness, who proved panchanama. P.W.4 was the Investigating Officer. Thus, prosecution case is based on the evidence of P.W.1, who was eye witness and P.W.3 panch witness. Panchanama also supports the prosecution case that the truck driver was at fault and due to rash or negligent driving, incident had occurred. Assuming that the evidence of these witnesses is reliable, it was necessary for the prosecution to lead some evidence to establish that the accused was driver of the truck and that he was driving rashly and negligently and committed offence. Record reveals that no evidence was led by the prosecution to establish that the accused/respondent was driving that vehicle at the time of incident. On that sole ground, the trial Court acquitted the accused. In view of these circumstances, no fault can be found with the order of acquittal. 3 Therefore, leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal refused and the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)