1 Cri.Application No.1442 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1442 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Badalsing Bharatsing Parmar ..RESPONDENT Mr N.R. Shaikh, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the applicant CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 27th June, 2011 PER COURT : By this application the applicant - State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ahmednagar, dated 9.12.2010, in Sessions Case No.87 of 2009, acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under section 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 353, 337 read with sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Since we have condoned the delay, this application is heard for admission at the request of learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor. 2. It appears that the respondent was not put on trial along with the other accused as he was absconding for last nearly 22 years. Meanwhile, the co-accused Raju came to be convicted by the Trial Court and was acquitted by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 1990. Similarly, the juvenile offender also came to be acquitted by this Court. 2 Cri.Application No.1442 of 2011 Be that as it may, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused by brushing aside the testimonies of P.W.No.1, 2 & 3, who are said to be eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W.1 Ashru has been disbelieved by the Trial Court on the ground that his evidence was contradictory to the recitals of the first information report which he had lodged. Similarly, P.W.2 Subhadra was not relied upon as the Trial Court found that he had not named the assailants nor had he given details about the assault. P.W. 3 Raghunath was found by the Trial Court to have exaggerated the entire incident and, therefore, was not found worthy of any credit. Evidence of P.W.5 Mohan was that of a witness who had not seen the incident and, therefore, his evidence was termed as hearsay. At the relevant time P.W.5 Mohan was sitting in the Barber's shop and had been apprised about the incident. 3. With the assistance of Mr Shaikh, learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the applicant - State, we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The learned A.P.P. has also made available to us the copies of the evidence of the witnesses examined during the trial. Upon such perusal, according to us no interference is called for in the present case. The view of the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 4. Consequently, there being no merit in the present application, application is dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap1442.11