STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SUHAS SATARDEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was tried for rash and negligent driving resulting in simple hurt to Subash Gaonkar and Ameti Gaonkar under sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined six witnesses in support of the charges. The trial Judge acquitted the respondent of the charges vide judgment dated 30th June 1997, against which the State has come in appeal.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor Shri Lawande has urged before me that inspite of clear evidence of two eye-witnesses and the panchanama on record, the trial Judge, disregarding the said evidence, ordered the acquittal of the respondent. He took me through the evidence of eye-witnesses P. W. 3 Amethi Gaonkar and P. W. 4 Subash Gaonkar as well as the panchanama and urged before me that it had been established by the prosecution that the accident took place on the right side of the road, taking the direction of the truck driven by the respondent; that the brake marks of the truck to the extent of 6. 5 metres were was found on the right side of the road; though the respondent had suggested to eye witnesses P. W. 3 Amethi Gaonkar and P. W. 4 Subash Gaonkar that the respondent was not driving the truck and instead the truck was being driven by one Eknath Gaonkar, the said plea was neither taken in the plea to the charge nor in statement under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and that trial Judge permitted recording of inadmissible evidence in relation to what was deposed by said Eknath Gaonkar before the police by allowing the defence to cross-examine the Investigating Officer in respect of the statement of the said Eknath Gaonkar before him, who had not been examined in the Court. It was also pointed out that the trial Judge had seriously erred in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of P. W. 3 Amethi Gaonkar and P. W. 4 Subash Gaonkar, who were injured in the accident, could not be relied upon, since they are interested witnesses. On the contrary, it is urged by Public Prosecutor Shri Lawande that injured eye-witnesses are the best witnesses and that the approach of the trial Judge in discarding the testimony of injured eye-witnesses on that count is totally erroneous in view of principle of assessment of evidence.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate Shri Nabar, appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged before me that none of the two eye witnesses examined by the prosecution has been able to give the speed of the truck; that P. W. 4 Subash Gaonkar does not even say that the truck was being driven at a fast speed; the brake marks on the road shows that the respondent was cautious in driving the vehicle, which was proceeding on the upward ascend; that P. W. 3 Amethi Gaonkar suffered injuries on account of application of brakes and that the prosecution had failed to establish rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent. He, however, admitted that the trial Court did permit recording of inadmissible evidence of Eknath Gaonkar, which was brought through the Investigating Officer, and that evidence upon which reliance was placed by the trial Judge be ignored.