1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.199/2007. (Sangeeta w/o Devidas Borade Vs. State of Mah. and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RS Shinde, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.SG Nandedkar, APP for State. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7 th September, 2009. ... 1) Heard learned Counsel for the original complainant/Sangita. The acquittal recorded on 26.7.2007 in RCC No.173/2006 is questioned by her. 2) Having gone through the Judgments of the learned JMFC, Gangapur, I find that the learned Judge has assigned cogent reasons for not accepting the evidence of the witnesses. There was improvement in the evidence of PW 2 – Shekhnath. The witness has gone to the extent of making allegation against the police officer. The learned Judge has also found that PW 5 – Dr.Jyoti has stated that there was pain in the abdomen of the complainant, therefore, the witness was referred to Surgery department for Ultra – Sonography. However, such report of surgery department as regards ultra- 2 sonography of the complainant was not produced without assigning any reason. Since the material document is not produced and only examination of PW 5 – Dr.Jyoti could not advance the contention of the prosecution, to the so-called medical certificate at Exhibit-36. In the situation, the reasoning for acquittal recorded by learned Judge does not warrant any interference. 3) Criminal Revision Application dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv199.07