-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION MAIN NO. 120 OF 2011 STATE Through Canacona Police Station, Canacona, Goa. …... Appellant V e r s u s Shri Sunil Datta Pednekar, son of Datta Pednekar, aged 26 years, r/o. Nagarcem, Canacona, Goa, Native of Kodibag, Karwar, Karnataka, State. …... Accused/ Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the State-Appellant. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Accused-Respondent. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 14 th December, 2011. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Applicant and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. This is an application for leave to Appeal against the Judgment passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Canacona, in Criminal Case no. 29/S/2010, whereby the Respondent came to be acquitted from the charges framed against him for offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. CRMAM-120-11 -2- 3. Shri Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Applicant has pointed out that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the Respondent which resulted in the accident. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the pick up driven by the Respondent was on the reverse direction and, as such, it was incumbent upon him to ensure that the motorcyclist should have taken necessary care in view of the fact that the motorcycle was coming from the back side. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the pick up driver was trying to enter a depot rashly and negligently which resulted in the accident. Learned Counsel has taken me through the statements of the witnesses and the evidence on record and pointed out that there was sufficient evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the Respondent was liable to the convicted for the offences on which count the charges have been framed against him by the learned J.M.F.C. 4. On the other hand, Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel has pointed out that the accident has occurred on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the motorcyclist who was injured. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and held that the Respondent deserves to be acquitted. Learned Counsel further pointed out that CRMAM-120-11 -3- there is no case made out by the Applicants to challenge the Judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the cross examination of Pw.2, it reveals that the Pick up driven by the Respondent was trying to enter a depot located at the side. In the cross examination of P.w.2 it is further admitted that the motorcycle was coming from the back side at a fast speed and was trying to avoid the pick up by trying to pass through a narrow space which was available between the pick up and the road. This statement of Pw.2 shows that the learned Magistrate was justified to come to the conclusion that the Applicants had failed to establish that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the Respondent which resulted in the accident. The evidence of P.w.3 further establishes that the prosecution has failed to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence, there is no case made out for leave to Appeal and, as such, the application stands dismissed accordingly. F .M. REIS, J. arp/* CRMAM-120-11