1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3303 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST. NO.701 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Mohammad Shafi Haji abdul Gafur & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for the applicant; Mr S.J. Salgare, Advocate holding for Smt. Sadhana Jadhav for respondents no.1, 2, 4 to 10 and 12 to 17. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 4th March, 2010 PER COURT : This is an application at the behest of the applicant - State seeking grant of leave to file appeal against acquittal challenging the judgment of the District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dated 31.5.2008, in Sessions Case No.44 of 2006, acquitting the respondents no.1 to 17 for offence punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 452, 307, 323 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2 2. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondents, we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the record & proceedings of the Trial Court. It appears that the Trial Court had disbelieved the eye- witnesses, namely P.W.1 Shaikh Issaq, P.W.5 farukh and P.W.6 Rubina on the ground that there were inter se variance in the testimonies of these witnesses and these witnesses claimed that the incident had occurred inside the house while the prosecution case was that the incident had occurred outside the house. In fact, the scene of the offence panchnama depicts the scene of the offence as outside the house. Consequently, no panchnama of any place of incident inside the house was drawn. Apart from this, the Trial Court further found that the medical evidence completely contradicted the testimonies of the eye-witnesses and, therefore, the Trial Court chose not to place any reliance on the said evidence. 3. We have examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court and upon such examination we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken 3 on the basis of the evidence on record. In that light of the matter, therefore, there is no merit in the application and Criminal Application No. 3303 of 2008 is dismissed. Leave refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap3303.08