1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 120 OF 2010 Ramchandra Vitthal Bongane ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. M. R. Deshpande for Applicant. Mr. J. P. Kharge - APP for State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : APRIL 23, 2010. P.C. : 1. Criminal Revision Application is taken up for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that though there was evidence on record to implicate the accused for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC, the learned trial court has not discussed the evidence in respect to that charge. 3. The scope of interference in the findings of acquittal is limited. 2 Unless it is found that the findings are perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with a finding of acquittal. 4. From the perusal of the judgment, it would reveal that there are various lacunas in the prosecution case. The learned trial court has found that the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses, though available. It has been further found that the witnesses which were examined were all interested witnesses. It has been further found that the prosecution had also not examined the medical officer and the investigating officer. 5. In so far as the contention regarding charge under Section 447 of IPC is concerned, the learned trial court has found that though the learned APP urged before the court to convict the accused for an offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC since the charge under Section 447 was not framed and since the accused did not have an opportunity to defend him for the said charge, the evidence in that respect cannot be discussed. 5. No perversity is found in the Order passed by the learned trial Court. No interference is warranted. Rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)