1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No.96/2009. JATINA SHAKEEL W/O LATE MUZZAMALL HUSSAIN R/O AKOLA .. Applicant VERSUS 1. AB.HAFIJ @ PAPPU S/O ABDUL MASHKI AND 9 ORS. R/O KAMPTEE 2. SK.SAMEER @ KAUWA S/O RAFIZ AHAMAD, R/O PARDI,NAGPUR 3. BABLU @ FIROJ S/O SAFAD AHAMAD ANSARI R/O KAMPTEE,DISTT.NAGPUR 4. ARIFA B. ANSARI S/O HARUN RASHID ANSARI R/O KAMPTEE,DISTT.NAGPUR 5. JITENDRA @ RAJU S/O RAGHUVIT TIWARI R/O KALMESHWAR 6. ROCKY @ JEORGE S/O ROMEND PAL R/O NAGPUR 7. RAFIK @ RASHID @ CHIDDA S/O MOHD. ABBAS ANASARI R/O KAMPTEE,DISTT.NAGPUR 8. MANISH S/O DUDHANATH SHRIWAS R/O NAGPUR 9. RAJU @ NADIM S/O EJAJUL MALIK R/O KAMPTEE,DISTT.NAGPUR 10. THE STATE OF MAH THR PSO, PS KAMPTEE,DISTT.NAGPUR Non-applicants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Mr. O.Y. Kashid, counsel for applicant. Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for State. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 3 rd of August, 2009. 1. Non-applicant nos.1 to 9 faced Sessions Trial No. 287 of 2008 in the Court of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge – 4, Nagpur for offences under sections 120-B, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal code and section 25 of the Arms Act. The said Non-applicants came to be acquitted by judgment and order dated 31st of January 2009 by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Against the said order, Jarina, the mother of deceased, filed this petition. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Kashid on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Yengal on behalf of the State. The incident in question is said to have took place on 26th October 2007 at abut 7 p.m. and according to the applicant deceased Afzal came to be assaulted by Non- applicant nos.1 to 9 and that is how various wittinesses came to be examined. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of witnesses and come to the conclusion that evidence of only two witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.12 can be considered to test the case of the prosecution as the evidence of these witnesses was not 3 acceptable being the tendency to improve the case of the prosecution. So far as witness P.W.13 Rubina is concerned it is observed that she has stated to have reached the spot and enquired with Afzal as to how and what happen. This question has been treated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as something to show that P.W.13 Rubin was not an eye witness. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the question of inadequate light at the time of the occurrence in as much as electricity supply failed thereby leading dark in the locality and therefore the incident could not be noticed by the witnesses in question. 5. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to observe that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence before him in the proper perspective and has come to the conclusion that respondent nos.1 to 9 deserve benefit of doubt on the basis of the weak testimonies of the various witnesses. 6. In my view no different conclusion can be drawn. With this, the instant revision can be dismissed at the stage of admission. The revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. JUDGE nvt.