1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.831 OF 2004 The State of Maharashtra. Applicant. V E R S U S Shriram Naikwade and others. Respondent Mr. S. D. Kaldate, APP for appellant/applicant. Mr. S.S. Manale adv for R-2 to 10. Respondent No.1 – abated. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 22 nd JUNE, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant-state, sought leave to file appeal against judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.8.2004 rendered by 5 th Adhoc Asst. Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.22/2000, acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 307, 324, 504, 506 r/w Sec 149 of Indian Penal Code and u/s 136 of Bombay Police Act. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.8.2004 as well as record and proceedings with the assistance of 2 learned APP Mr Kaldate and learned counsel Mr. Manale for respondents No. 2 to 10. 4. The respondents/original accused herein, faced the trial for the charges levelled against them under the above referred sections. Prosecution has examined in as much as 12 witnesses to substantiate the said charges. Out of the said witnesses, apparently PW 2 Sk. Ajim Dulemiya, PW 3 Vinod Shinde, PW 4 Arvind Naikwade and PW 9 Sk. Noor turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of alleged eye witnesses and victim PW 5 Ramizbee, PW 6 Sujeet Undare, PW 7 Aref Maniya , PW 8 Moyd. Husain and PW 1 Isaq Mohd. Husain. However, PW 5 Ramizbee, eye witness and victim, was unable to identify Bibhishan, who allegedly pelted stones on her person. She admitted that she has not seen any of the accused before the incident, allegedly took place on 16.4.1999 and she saw them for the first time in the Court. 5. As regards the prosecution evidence, learned trial judge has observed that the prosecution has relied upon interested witnesses and witnesses cited by the prosecution are accused in that state case initiated by the present accused against them i.e. SC No.74/2003 and therefore their evidence in that facts and circumstances is not acceptable. It is also observed by the learned trial judge that, there is no evidence as to the 3 formation of unlawful assembly with common object as alleged and as such accused cannot be held guilty for the commission of the offence of rioting as contended by the prosecution. It is further observed by the learned trial judge that fact remains that there appears to be rivalry between two groups and parties are on enemical terms with each other. 6. According to the learned trial judge, in the instant case, eye witnesses are not able to give correct version as to when and how the incident has occurred, how victims received blows at the hands of accused, during the trial, their evidence is not only of interested but the same cannot be accepted as their versions do not corroborate with each other. Besides that, as regards the involvement of the accused for their contravention of Section 37 (1) punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, it is observed by the learned trial judge that investigating officer PW 12 Mohan Jadhav, doesnot whisper before the Court that there was promulgation of the order of District Magistrate, under Section 37 (1) of Bombay Police Act, as well as copy of the said order also has not been produced on record by the investigating officer. 7. Learned trial judge observed that evidence led by the prosecution is not convincing, trustworthy and acceptable to bring home the guilt against accused persons in respect of charges levelled against them and consequently did not hold them guilty and acquitted them for the charges 4 levelled against them. 8. After scrutinizing and appreciating evidence, the learned trial judge arrived to the conclusion that respondents/accused are not guilty for the alleged charges and acquitted them, and apparently, reasoning adopted by the learned trial judge there for cannot be faulted with. Moreover, view taken by the learned trial judge is a possible view after analyzing evidence and same doesnot appear to be perverse and hence no interference therein is warranted. 9. In the result, prayer made by the applicant-state, seeking leave to file appeal, against judgment and order dated 13.8.2004 stands refused and consequently present appeal No.831/2004 stands dismissed. 10. Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) AAA/831.04 ***