1 Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.REVISION APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2008 (CHETAN HARGOVIIND CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR.PSO BHANDARA & OTH.) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri O.W.Gupta, Advocate for Applicant. Shri O.D.Kakade, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2009. 1. Victim's son has preferred this revision against the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, whereby the learned Judge acquitted respondents No.2 to 5, which includes applicant's mother, who is respondent No.3, of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and also gone through the judgment. 3. The story of the applicant is that his father was stabbed and then poisoned when he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. The viscera does 2 not show presence of any poison, according to the learned counsel. Therefore, the cause of death due to poisoning is not proved. As far as the stab injury being the cause of death, evidence of Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem, does not show that the cause of death is stab injury. In any case, there are no eye witnesses, who have seen respondents No. 2 to 5 inflicting stab injury on the victim. The learned Judge has observed that P.W. 3 Harihar met the victim immediately after the incident and the victim had told him that somebody assaulted him and ran away. 4. Had the victim being assaulted by respondents No.2 to 5 the victim would have identified his wife-respondent No.3 and her paramour-respondent No.2. The learned trial Judge rightly rejected the evidence of P.W. 11 Mohan, victim's brother, who claimed that his brother-the victim had told him that respondents No.2 and 3 had hatched a conspiracy to get the victim assaulted, because the statement of Mohan was recorded by the police after lapse of four months. It cannot be said that the learned trial Judge had took a view which was improbable or untenable. The revision application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.