1 crapn2451.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2451 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Georai, Tq. Georai, District Beed. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Suresh s/o Ramkishan Meghare, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Dhondrai, Tq. Georai, District Beed. 2. Bhaurao @ Prakash s/o Ramkishan Meghare, Age: 34 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. as above. 3. Arun s/o Kailash Meghare, Age: 21 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. as above. 4. Adinath s/o Sarjerao Kute, Age: 51 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. as above. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for applicant. Mr. Bhaskar L. Dhas, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2011 2 crapn2451.10 PER COURT : . Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and also to the recovery of weapons from the respondents and submitted that each prosecution witness has stated in his evidence about bleeding injuries by the respondents. He further submitted that P.W. No.9 Lahanu Kamble and also wife of P.W. No.9 namely Kusum sustained injuries. He further submits that all the respondents in furtherance of their common intention has assaulted the complainant and also his wife and therefore, this application seeking leave to appeal, may be allowed. 3. On the other hand,learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court, in detail, has discussed about the evidence of each witness and also found that there is no recovery 3 crapn2451.10 of the weapons, as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from the respondents. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order. 4. I have given due consideration to the submission. Since the facts are stated extensively from Para. Nos. 2 to 8 of the impugned judgment, those are not repeated herein. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, trial Court has discussed the evidence of the witnesses from Para. Nos. 21 to 34. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of each prosecution witness and also medical evidence. The trial Court in Para-21 has discussed about the medical evidence of P.W. No.8 and concluded that even if presence of P.W.No.8 on the spot was doubtful. So far as the accused NO.1 is concerned, though there are allegations that he has assaulted P.W. No.9, the evidence of P.W. No.7 is contradicted to the evidence of P.W. No.9. Recovery of iron bar is not supported by panch 4 crapn2451.10 witness. On analysis of entire evidence by prosecution witnesses, also medical evidence and recovery from the respondents, the trial Court found that the respondents are entitled to the acquittal. 5. Upon hearing learned A.P.P. and upon independent scrutiny of the evidence made available, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. The possible view was taken by the trial Court. Even if it is assumed for a moment, another view is possible, however, that is no ground to interfere in the order of acquittal. There is also substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the respondents that complaint was lodged on 14-12-2007 though the alleged incident took place on 12-12-2007. As stated hereinabove, the trial Court has extensively dealt with evidence of prosecution witnesses in detail, I am not persuaded to take different view than the view taken by the trial Court. Hence, the 5 crapn2451.10 application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. 6. Registry to send back the original Record and Proceedings to the trial Court, forthwith. sd/- [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn2451.10