IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2010 MRS. MARIA LOBO ... Petitioner Versus MR. FRANCIS SIMOES AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Shri Galileo Teles, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri Ryan Menezes holding for Shri S. Narvekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.6. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 13th August, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. This revision is filed by the first informant against Judgment of acquittal dated 16-12-2009 by which the accused have been acquitted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 325, 341, 04, 506(II) r/w 149 IPC. The accused were charged and tried with the allegation that on 12-11-2007 at about 13.00 hours at Arao, Pomburpa, Bardez, the accused nos.1 to 5 had formed an unlawful assembly with a common object, armed with deadly weapon like danda and had wrongfully restrained the said first informant Maria Lobo and assaulted her with danda, fist blows and kicks and had also abused her with filthy words and threatened her with dire consequences, and thereby committed the said offence. In the course of the trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Amongst the said witnesses, the most important were PW4/Maria Lobo, the said first informant, her daughter PW7/Julia Lobo and another eye witness, namely PW5/Gambling Fernandes. PW8/Agnes Mascarenhas and PW9/Dr. Dilip Kuncolikar were the Medical Officers. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence produced acquitted the accused. Shri G. Teles, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioner/first informant submits that the learned trial Court has not at all considered the evidence of PW3/Bapu Pikulkar and PW6/Shailesh Gadekar and brushed aside the evidence of Medical Officers PW8/Agnes Mascarenhas and PW9/Dr. Dilip Kuncolikar. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have considered the evidence of all the witnesses and since that is not done the case be remanded to the learned trial Court to decide the case afresh. In what cases revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by this Court at the instance of a private complainant have been laid down in various decisions including that of the Apex Court in Sheetala Prasad and others v. Sri Kant and another(2010 ALL MR(Cri) 2326(S.C.) and one of them is where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence. Shri Teles, the learned Counsel has placed strong reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court. The prosecution evidence of the main witnesses, namely PW4/Maria Lobo, the first informant, her daughter PW7/Julia Lobo and the eye witness PW5/Gambling Fernandes has been considered by the learned trial Court in the Judgment. That there was enmity between both the parties has been noted in para 24 of the Judgment. That there were discrepancies in the evidence of PW4/Maria Lobo and PW7/Julia Lobo, her daughter, has been taken note of in para 25. The evidence of PW5/Gambling Fernandes has been dealt with in para 26 and in para 27, the learned trial Court has observed that the entire deposition of PW5/Gambling Fernandes shows that his is an improved version and full of material contradictions which are not in conformity with the deposition of(other) eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. In my view, the learned trial Court as on appreciation of evidence produced by the prosecution has acquitted the accused, and, therefore this is not a fit case to entertain this petition at the behest of the first informant. Application disposed of. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.