1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.52/2009. PRAVEEN S/O WAMANRAO WANKHADE R/O MOTHI UMARI, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR,AKOLA .. Petitioner VERSUS 1. DHANRAJ S/O KISANRAO MESHRAM & 3 ORS. R/O MOTHI UMRI, SIDDARTH NAGAR, AKOLA 2. VIJAY S/O KISANRAO MESHRAM R/O MOTHI UMRI,SIDDARTH NAGAR,AKOLA,T.& DIST.AKOLA 3. PRAVIN S/O KISANRAO MESHRAM R/O MOTHI UMRI,SIDDARTH NAGAR,AKOLA,T.& DIST.AKOLA 4. STATE OF MAH THR PSO,AKOLA CIVIL LINES,AKOLA .. Respondent/s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. O.Y. Kashid, counsel for applicant. None for State. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 3 rd of August, 2009. 1. The respondent nos.2 to 5 faced Regular Criminal 2 Case No.670 of 2006 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola under sections 323, 325, 346 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed the judgment and order dated 28th January 2008 and convicted the respondent nos.1 to 3 under sections 325 of the Indian Penal Code as we as section 324 of the Indian Penal code and ordered to undergo sentence as set out in the said order. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 felt aggrieved by the said order of conviction and they filed criminal appeal in the District Court being Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2008. The said appeal was heard and decided by the judgment and order dated 21st of January 2009. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted for all the charges and that is how the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was set aside. Against this order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the complainant filed this petition. 2. I have extensively heard Mr. Kashid in support of this revision. 3. The prosecution has examined in all four witnesses by name P.W.1 Pravin, P.W.5 Shashikala, P.W.8 Bhimrao and P.W.3 Deepak. Each of the witnesses contributed a role to the each of the respondent and has attributed the guilt. The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence of these witnesses and by giving reasons come to the conclusion that these witnesses are not talking in unison. The learned Sessions Judge has also commented that the 3 evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. 4. I have perused judgment of the learned trial Judge as well as the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. According to me, Sessions Judge has dealt with each an every aspect of the evidence led by the prosecution, and has given his comments as to why he does not accept versions of the witnesses for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion that respondent nos.1 to 3 have committed an offence. 5. After having considered the entire record and in the light of the submissions which were made across the Bar, I am inclined to observe that the learned Principal Sessions Judge has taken a correct view of the matter in as much as prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the respondent nos.1 to 3 beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 6. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of each witness and has looked into the corroboration of the same and that learned Sessions Judge has ultimately come to the conclusion that the witnesses do not corroborate each other in material particulars. That is why he felt it proper to disbelieve the witnesses. 4 7. On consideration of the entire record, I am inclined to observe that no interference is required in the judgment given by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence the order. Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. JUDGE nvt.