1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2009. Smt.Sunanda Popat Waghmare ...Applicant. VERSUS Navanath s/o Kashinath Takpere & others. ...Respondents. ...... Mr.Sandeep S.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.N.H.Borade, APP for respondent No.6/State. ...... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. Date : 8th June, 2009. COURT'S ORDER: 1. This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.3, Ahmednagar in Regular Tribale Case No.104/2001 acquitting the respondents No.1 to 5. The respondents No.1 to 5 were charged under Sections 323, 341, 506, 143, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. After a full fledged trial, the learned Magistrate as said above, recorded the judgment of acquittal. The original complainant filed this revision challenging this judgment. 2 3. With the help of learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, I went through the judgment. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant criticized the judgment mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate did not exhibit the medical certificates showing various injuries on the persons of the prosecution witnesses. The circumstances as to why the medical certificates were not exhibited are rather peculiar. It so happened that after the incident, the prosecution witnesses were referred to medical examination and at the relevant time one Dr.Mhase was present in the Government Hospital. He examined the injuries on the persons of the witnesses and issued medico-legal certificates. But unfortunately, before the trial began Dr.Mhase died. In his place one Dr.Sonar came to record his deposition in the Court. Dr.Sonar admitted that he did not examine prosecution witnesses but he did say that at the relevant time he was working with Dr.Mhase in the same hospital. The learned Magistrate did not think it fit to exhibit the medical certificates. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant asserted that if Dr.Sonar knew and was acquainted with Dr.Mhase's handwriting and if the original medico-legal Register & certificates were available with Dr.Sonar, the learned Magistrate should have exhibited the medico-legal certificates. Indeed, the medical certificates, in such circumstances could have been exhibited but such exhibition of documents would have limited purpose. It would not substitute the substantive evidence of Dr.Mhase who would have deposed that he had seen the witnesses in his dispensary and had examined the injuries on their persons. This certification from the 3 examining Doctor is necessary to prove the injuries on the persons of the prosecution witnesses. The substituted deposition of another Doctor who is acquainted with the handwriting and the signatures of the examining Doctor is, therefore, not the substantive evidence. 4. The learned Magistrate even otherwise rejected the prosecution case. She said that she would not accept and believe the testimonies of the complainant, prosecution witnesses Popat and Narendra because the other independent witnesses were not examined in support of their case. The learned Judge also gave a finding that there was hardly any case of rioting because the purpose of the assembled group of accused was not of committing an offence but to request and take with them one Jayshree who happens to be sister of respondents No. 1 and 3. On perusal of this judgment, I am of the view that the judgment is based on cogent reasons. There is of course a possibility of other view of the matter, but since this is a revision, re-appreciation of evidence is generally not done, I am therefore, not inclined to admit the revision. Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) lkp