acquitted of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 294, 336, 188 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/10/2008, between 3.30 to 4 p.m., communal riots having broken out in the Burhanpur City, complainant Suresh Shukla, a Tampo Driver along with his brother Rakesh Shukla returned to his home and parked the Tampo in front of his house.At that juncture, 10-12 rioters arrived and started pelting stones.When Rakesh came out of the Tampo, 2-3 miscreants, with an intention to cause his death assaulted him leading to injuries on his right hand, shoulder, back and head.Rakesh fell on the spot.As complainant Suresh came forward to rescue Rakesh, he was also beaten by them.He received injuries on his right knee, leg, back and others caused by stone.After beating them, the brawlers, fled from the spot.Amongst them, Gulli, Chhota Baba, Munir, Mannu Mahelwar, Aasif and brother of Mahmood Leader were identified by the complainant.During the incident, the rioters also looted his household articles.The incident was witnessed by Vijay, Kadam, Dilip, Punam Shukla, Kamlesh Shukla etc., who had come on the spot hearing the cries of the complainant.Matter was reported at Police Station Lalbagh and, as during treatment, Rakesh succumbed to the injuries thus sustained, offence under Section 302 of the IPC was also added.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and deserves to be set-aside.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.Complainant and eye-witness Suresh (PW4) had identified only respondent nos.5,7 namely Aminuddin, Riyazuddin alias Raju, as well as Sabir and Naeem.In the First Information Report (for short "FIR"), it is mentioned that incident had occurred at the house of the complainant, but, as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the offence was committed near Sulabh Shouchalaya, which was situated five houses away from the house of the complainant and, therefore, it was not possible to hear the commotion arising at the spot from the house of the complainant and to ascertain the location of spot, with the consent of both the parties, report of Commissioner N.K.Patel was called by the trial Court.As per the facts mentioned in the FIR, deceased Rakesh was brought to the Hospital in a seriously injured condition in a Tampo, but, Dr. Dilip Patidar (PW1) has testified that Rakesh had himself come for medical aid and this fact is mentioned in MLC report (Ex.P/1) also.In the FIR, it is mentioned that the rioters had veiled their faces.Compliance of Section 157 of the Code was also not done.Presence of human blood could not be ascertained on the sword seized from Sharif.There were material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of witnesses.Dilip (PW8), Devendra Singh (PW12), Rizwan Khan (PW13), Vijay (PW15) were declared hostile.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.The application for grant of leave to file appeal, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code