1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 173/2008 Diwakar Balaji Ladhi ..vs.. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO Hinganghat & 5 ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Anil Mardikar with Mr. S. G.Joshi, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D. M. Kale, A.P.P. for non applicant. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 24 th JULY, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. non applicant nos. 2 to 6 faced trial in the Sessions Court at Wardha before learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 103/2008 under Section 143, 147, 148, 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha (hereinafter referred to as learned ‘trial Judge’) acquitted non applicant nos. 2 to 4 of the offences for which they were charged. Against this order dated 02.08.2008, this Criminal Revision Application has been filed. No appeal is filed against this order by the State. 3. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for non applicant no.1. 2 4. The prosecution had availed opportunity to examine its witness Diwakar (PW1), Sudhakar (PW2), Babibai (PW3) and Jijabai (PW4) and other witnesses. The prosecution story is that non applicant nos. 2 to 5 jointly assaulted the complainant Diwakar with sticks in the evening of 06.11.2006. 5. The learned trial Judge has discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and has given reasons for disbelieving the prosecution witness. In his view, the prosecution has failed to bring the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. 6. I have perused the record and the impugned judgment. Learned trial Judge has discarded the evidence of prime witness Diwakar as he had described the incident partly and had not attributed guilt to other non applicants. Certain omissions from the evidence of Diwakar also have been brought on record. Insofar as the other witnesses are concerned, substantial omissions have been brought on record in the course of cross-examination and the learned trial Judge has, after giving reasons for discarding each of the witness, has arrived at a conclusion after reading the 3 evidence in cumulative manner. 7. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to observe that this is not a case where the Court should interfere and admit the revision keeping in view the the scope of this Court in interfering in the order of acquittal. In my view, the applicant has failed to make out a case for admission. Hence, the order. The revision application is dismissed. JUDGE kahale