The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrutinizing eyewitness testimony, spot panchanama, and evidence presented by the prosecution to determine the credibility of the case.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is preferred by State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order dtd. 27/4/2007 passed by Ad-hoc Sessions Judge - 6, District : Kolhapur in Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2006 by which the respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 279, 337, 338, 427 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Ss. 184 134(b) r/w Sec. 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act").

2. The respondent was prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. Plea was recorded on 23/11/2005. The respondent was tried before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kagal vide Summery Criminal Case No. 118 of 2004. The respondent was charged for offences under Ss. 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Sec. 184, 134(b) of MV Act.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by judgment and order dtd. 12/7/2006 convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500.00. He was further convicted for the offences under Sec. 338 of IPC, Sec. 184, Sec. 134(b) r/w Sec. 177 of the MV Act. He was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.500.00, fine of Rs.500.00, fine of Rs.100,.00 respectively for the aforesaid offences. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Thus, the respondent was convicted by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by him was allowed by the Sessions Court by setting aside the judgment of conviction and directing acquittal of the respondent for all the offences.

5. Learned APP submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and concluded that the charges against the accused were proved. There was no reason for setting aside the order of conviction by the appellate Court. Primarily, the judgment of acquittal is based on the fact that the witnesses were from the same village and that they were interested witnesses. Since it was a case of accident, the witnesses are bound to be from the same place. What was required to be said that the evidence of these witnesses does not inspire confidence. The trial Court has considered the evidence of witnesses. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The injured has deposed in the manner in which the incident had occurred. The accused was driving S.T. bus in a full speed. On account of rash and negligent driving, the bus dashed at the bullock cart of the injured. As a result of which the cart had overturned. Injuries were caused to him. The bullocks were injured. The S.T. bus did not stop at the place of incident. The driver along with bus was brought to the spot by witnesses. Damage was caused to the bullock cart as well as the S.T. bus. The appellate Court has not considered the evidence of eye witnesses. The spot panchanama was recorded. Injury certificate was adduced in evidence. Hence, by overlooking the evidence on record the appellant Court has set aside the order of conviction.

6. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW1 - Ganpati Sathe is the panch witness for the spot. PW-2 Ganpati Balugade is the injured person. PW-3 - Anil Sutar is eye witness to the incident. PW-4 - Dinkar Sathe is eye witness to the incident. He reported the incident to Police. PW-5, Rajendra Sangar conducted investigation. PW-6 - Dr. Suresh Kurhade is the medical officer, who had examined the injured.

7. The trial Court was pleased to convict the respondent. The trial Court had observed that the evidence of PW-2 to PW-4 is vital. They are star witnesses. PW-2 is injured. All these witnesses have proved the charges against the accused. The prosecution has proved the spot panchanama. The prosecution has proved that the accused was driving S.T. bus in rash and negligent manner. There are eye witnesses to the incident. Merely because the witnesses are interested, their testimony cannot be discarded or disbelieved. The witnesses cannot be termed as brought up witnesses.

8. The learned Sessions judge has set aside