(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2008. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2008. The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Shailendra Vijendra Yagnik. .. Respondent. .... Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for Applicant. Mr. S.V. Yagnik, Adv. for Respondent No.1. .... CORAL : SMUT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAL : SMUT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAL : SMUT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th May 2007, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai, in C.C. No.1201/P/1994. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent accused, for the offences under section 279 & 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. (2) 2. The prosecution case is that, the appellant was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and he caused death of Dipti, daughter of the complainant. 3. I have heard the learned A.P.P. for the State and the respondent-original accused, who is present in person. I have perused the judgment and order as well as evidence produced by the learned A.P.P. 4. The prosecution has examined only one witness, i.e. the complainant Mr. Rane. Mr. Rane is the father of deceased-Dipti. The complainant has stated that on 27th April 1994 at 6.20 p.m., he, his wife and daughter, were walking on Society road at Jogeshwari (East). The complainant crossed to the other side of the road to get some eatables for his family. He told his wife and daughter to remain standing on the opposite side of the road. When the complainant returned, he found that his daughter was below jeep bearing no.MH-02-8473. He found that she had expired on the spot. Hence, F.I.R. came to be registered. (3) 5. As stated earlier, the prosecution has examined only Mr. Rane. He does not claim to be an eye-witness to the incident. No other witness has been witnessed by the prosecution. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent-accused was driving the jeep rashly and negligently and due to this act, death of Dipti was caused. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate held that the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the accused was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle or that his rashness or negligence caused death of Dipti and hence, he acquitted the respondent. 6. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. The application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMUT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMUT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMUT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)