IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3477 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS VINOD MARUTI CHAUDHARY AND ORS ... APP for Applicant / Appellant : Shri N.B.Patil ... CORAM : A. H. JOSHI & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: August 26, 2011 ... 1. This is an application for leave to appeal by the State. 2. The accused were tried for commission of offences under Sections 394, 367 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution has relied upon evidence of as much as nine witnesses, including the Investigating Officer. 4. The robbery pertains to mobile handset and gold ornament on the person of the complainant. 5. The case proceeded in the background that though the complainant was examined, his brother was not examined. akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (2) CR.APPLN/3477/2011 6. The incident is said to have occurred at 8.00 p.m. whereas, the first information report appears to have recorded at the same time. 7. According to the story contained in the complaint, other customers in the permit room had gathered when the incident occurred but none of witnesses amongst the customers are examined. 8. Considering the manner in which the prosecution had persuaded the case, independent witnesses, who were admittedly available, were neither explored nor brought before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution story unbelievable. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, further found that the failure of the prosecution to bring original invoices of the gold ornaments brought the prosecution story in doubt as to the possession of the gold ornaments being robbed. akl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD (3) CR.APPLN/3477/2011 10. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence and formed an opinion. It is not shown that any other opinion than the one arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge could have been arrived at. 11. Argument that the evidence could have led to a different opinion than arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, is not available in the appeal against acquittal. 12. We, therefore, found no ground to grant indulgence in the appeal. 13. The application and appeal, both are dismissed. ( A. R. JOSHI, J. ) ( A. H. JOSHI, J. ) ... akl