IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2009 MUDDSSAR SHAIKH KOTWALE ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... Respondent Mr. S. Vales, Advocate for the applicant. Coram:- U. D. SALVI, J. Date:- 4th December, 2009 P.c. Heard. Perused criminal revision application and annexures therewith. 2. The applicant accused has been convicted of the offences punishable under sections 279, 304-A of IPC, and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 2 months and pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo S.I. of further 2 months, and to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months and pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo S.I. of further 3 months respectively by the learned JMFC, Bicholim. Criminal appeal being criminal appeal no. 106/2009 preferred against the judgment and order of conviction was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji with order dated 12.11.2009. 3. It is the prosecution case that the applicant accused hit a kinetic honda scooter standing stationary behind the mini bus and the rider of the scooter was thrown off the scooter with his scooter thrown on other side of the road and as a result of this accident he met his end. The prosecution examined panch witness to prove the scene of offence panchanama and further examined eye witnesses as well as RTO Officer. Evidence of panch witness reveals that the kinetic honda scooter was lying inside the compound of the house across the road and there was damage to the front side of the tempo driven by the applicant/accused. PW3 Motor Vehicle Inspector/RTO officer Mapusa deposed that on inspection of the scooter as well as the tempo he had noticed the following damages. Kinetic Honda scooter:- Front LHS, indicator light, rear brake and LHS engine cover damage. Tempo:- front show, front wind shield glass, head lights, stering system. LHS door, propeller shaft and engine gear box damage. His evidence also shows the damage to the mini bus:- dent on the rear bumper towards RHS, rear right hand side indicator damaged, deep dent on the corner towards RHS rear side light. He categorically asserted in the cross examination that it is not possible that the damage to the scooter can be caused if the scooter gave a dash from the front side and fell on the left side. His testimony completely rules out the defence of the applicant/accused and corroborates the testimonies of the eye witnesses on material particulars. 4. No perversity or illegality is seen in the discretion exercised by the successive courts below. The revision is rejected. U. D. SALVI, J. vn