7. cr appln 4032­09.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4032 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs Husen Hambir Shaikh .. Respondent Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 20th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned JMFC, Ichalkaranji in Summary Criminal Case No. 843 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e original accused came to be acquitted of the offences under sections 279 and 427 of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 21st April 2006 at about 11.35 am, the respondent-original accused was driving one dumper no. MH-09/Q-7386 which was loaded with gravel. The respondent was driving the dumper in a rash and careless manner in a high speed due to which he rammed into the house of the complainant PW 1 Rajan Chavhan. 1 7. cr appln 4032­09.doc 3. Charge under sections 279 and 427 of IPC and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act came to be framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is that he did not drive the vehicle in a rash or reckless or negligent manner but the accident occurred as the brake of the dumper had failed. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned JMFC acquitted the respondent as stated in para 1 above, hence, this application for leave to file appeal. 4. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned JMFC. 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 JMFC does not call for any interference. 5. As far as the complainant PW 1 Rajan Chavhan is concerned, he is not an eye witness to the incident. He was informed about the incident on telephone. PW 2 Shivaji Kamble who is the panch witness reached the spot after the incident had occurred, hence his evidence is not of much help to show that the respondent was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. PW 3 Sunil Wadgave and PW 4 Sukhadev 2 7. cr appln 4032­09.doc Kamble are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW 3 Wadgave has stated that on 21st April 2006 at around 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon, one dumper came in a high speed and it dashed a cycle and then broke the veranda and staircase of the house of PW 1 Rajan Chavhan. He has stated that the dumper was driven by respondent-original accused. PW 4 Kamble has stated that at about 11.30 am to 12.00 noon, while he was going on his cycle, one dumper dashed his cycle and thereafter it rammed into the house of PW 1 and caused damage to the house. 6. No doubt, both the above witnesses have stated that the dumper was in a high speed and rammed into the house of PW 1 Rajan Chavhan. However, Exh. 23 which is the certificate given after inspection of the said dumper shows that the accident had taken place as the pipe of brake of the said dumper was broken resulting into brake failure. The said certificate also shows that there was fault in the steering wheel of the dumper. Thus, from Exh. 23, it is clear that the accident had taken place not because the respondent drove the dumper in a rash or negligent manner in high speed but because of brake failure, hence, the dumper could not be controlled. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, I find that 3 7. cr appln 4032­09.doc conclusion arrived at by the learned JMFC is a reasonable and possible view. 8. 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 possible view may arise on the evidence. 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 JMFC is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, leave to file appeal, is refused. 9. Application is rejected. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 4 7. cr appln 4032­09.doc 5