IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 975 OF 200 APPEAL NO. 975 OF 200 APPEAL NO. 975 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra ....... Appellant. versus Balu Rajaka Padval & anr. ..... Respondents. ..... Shri B.R.Patil PP for the State. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM ; V.G.PALSHIKAR ; V.G.PALSHIKAR ; V.G.PALSHIKAR & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED; DATED; DATED; 29TH OCTOBER, 2004. 29TH OCTOBER, 2004. 29TH OCTOBER, 2004. P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. By this appeal, the judgment of acquittal is challenged on the ground that the learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the evidence of two eye witnesses. Cogent reasons have been given by the learned trial Judge for so rejecting. Whereas according to the learned Judge benefit of doubt was required to be given to the accused as several reasonable doubts arise out of the prosecution story. 2. Merely because a different view for re-appreciation of evidence is possible it is not the ground for admitting the appeal against acquittal where purversity or illegality of the order is one of the essential ingredience. Hence appeal is dismissed. ....