Dixit 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1563 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.... OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Petitioner Vs. Hanumant Chandrakant Jagtap & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. P.H. Kantharia, APP, for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The State has filed appeal against the Judgement and Order dated 20th November, 2008 delivered by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.131 of 2006 acquitting the respondents. We have heard Ms. Kantharia, learned APP. We find that one of the independent witnesses has turned hostile and the other witness has not supported Dixit 2 the prosecution. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is thus of interested witnesses. PW 1 is the complainant. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that accused No.4 and other lady accused entered her house. She has stated that she does not remember the names of other lady accused. Thereafter she has tried to improve her case by saying accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 12 also rushed there. It appears, therefore, that the complainant is not sure as to who entered the house and who indulged in ransacking the house and setting it on fire. In her cross-examination several omissions have been brought on record which in our opinion make her an unreliable witness. PW 2 is a daughter in law of PW 1. She has improved the version of PW 1 by roping in the accused. 2. Prima facie we feel that evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 does not inspire confidence. They are interested witnesses. In the absence of evidence of independent witnesses, it is difficult to hold that the respondents are guilty of the offence alleged Dixit 3 against them. It is pertinent to note that PW 1 has admitted that there are number of shops around the place where the incident took place, yet not a single shopkeeper has been examined by the prosecution. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the view expressed by the trial court is a reasonably possible view which cannot be interfered with in this appeal against the acquittal. Hence, leave to appeal is refused. 3. Criminal Application is dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]