Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4924
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J
STATE OF GOA THR. OFFICER IN CHARGE PONDA POLICE STATION – Appellant
Versus
DURGADAS GAUDE – Respondent
CRMAM 3 / 2024
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279 and 338 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 185 - Acquittal of accused in a road accident case - The learned JMFC acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence proving identity and driving under influence - The prosecution's evidence was found unreliable, particularly the testimony of the victim, which was inconsistent and contradictory. (Paras 6, 10, 11)
(B) Acquittal - Standard of proof - The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any discrepancies in witness testimonies can lead to reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 07.09.2016, where the accused allegedly drove a vehicle in a rash manner, causing injuries to the victims. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding insufficient evidence to prove the charges.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was upheld, as the evidence presented was deemed unreliable and insufficient to establish the accused's guilt.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence regarding the identity of the driver and the alleged driving under the influence of alcohol.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for conviction, particularly due to inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of corroborative evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1.Prayer clause (b) of this Application seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16.02.2019 passed by the learned JMFC, ‘C’ Court, Ponda, by which, the non-applicant has been acquitted of the offences under Section 279 and 338 of the IPC and Section 185 of the M.V. Act vide Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C.
2.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the learned JMFC while passing the impugned judgment has not considered the evidence on record in its proper perspective and therefore, leave to appeal ought to be granted. He submits that since the relevant evidence has already been placed on record, upon leave being granted, the Appeal can be decided forthwith.
3.Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant is agreeable for the Appeal to be decided on merits if the same is argued forthwith, which is acceptable to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, considering which, leave is granted.
4.Considering that both the learned Counsel are ready to address the Court on merits, the matter is being heard on merits.
5.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Bhobe waives service on behalf of the Respondent. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.The factuality of the position is as under:
The incident is alleged to have occurred on 07.09.2016 at 12:10 hours, in which it is claimed that while the victim was proceeding on a public way from Madkai towards Manaswada, Kundaim direction, the accused who was driving a maruti omni van bearing registration no. GA-05-B-8853 in a rash and negligent manner and under the influence of alcohol at Gurvaswada, Kundaim, caused an accident to the oncoming aviator scooter bearing registration no. GA-05-E-6560, as a result of which, the rider of the scooter Urvesh Redkar (PW-2) and the pillion rider (Shravani Naik) sustained grievous injuries. The spot panchanama was prepared to which, Mithun Naik and Chaitanya Velingkar (PW-1) were the panchas. The statement of the injured was recorded and FIR No. 259/2016 was registered by the Ponda Police under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC read with Section 185 of the M.V. Act on the same date. Reports of the RTO regarding the inspection of the vehicles were obtained. A medical certificate of the injured was also obtained and blood samples of the accused are also claimed to have been taken for alcoholic estimation. During the course of the trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution and upon the statement of the accused being recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent of the offences under the aforesaid provisions.
7.Mr. Nagvenker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assails the impugned judgment on the following three grounds:
(i) That it has been incorrectly held that the identity of the person driving the offending vehicle has not been proved;
(ii) There was no necessity of a test identification parade for the reason that the accused/respondent was immediately apprehended on the spot and (iii) That the respondent, was in an inebriated condition, which has been ignored, as the evidence of PW-2, Urvesh Redkar, which states that the respondent was smelling of liquor at the time of the accident, in fact, demonstrates driving under the influence of alcohol on account of which Section 185(a) of the M.V. Act became applicable.
8.Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the Respondent invites my attention to para 34 of the impugned judgment, which holds, that the claim by the victim, of his leg being stuck in the wheel of the vehicle on account of which the wheel had to be cut to remove his leg, is found to be untrue, which according to him casts a doubt as to the very happening of the incident. It is submitted that so also, it has been held that the requirement of Section 185(1) of the M.V. Act was not satisfied on account of breath analyzer test having not been carried out.
9.A perusal of the impugned judgment, woul
