: 1 : A-4517-10=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4517 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. --OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant v/s. Bajrang Khashaba Choudhari & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for the applicant Mr. Ganesh Gole for respondent nos. 1 to 11. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 6th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The respondents were required to face trial in the Sessions Case No.136 of 2008 under Section 143, 147, 323 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara conducted the trial and by Judgment dated 23rd April, 2010 acquitted all 11 respondents from all the charges, for which they were required to face the trial. Against the order of acquittal, an appeal has been filed. This application is for seeking leave to file appeal. : 2 : A-4517-10=.doc 2. I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Kondedeshmukh appearing on behalf of the Applicant State and Mr. Gole on behalf of all the respondents. The incident is said to have taken place on 14th October, 2007 at about 9.30 a.m. at village Mamurdi in Satara District. According to the prosecution, statue of Shivaji Maharaj was dishonoured and that is why the members of public had gathered near the said statue. PW-3 Sanjay Gade along with one person by name Nandu Gadgil came near the statue and attempted to take the photograph and it is at that point of time, according to the prosecution, all respondents attacked PW-3 Sanjay Gade and uttered words with reference to his caste. The prosecution examined in all 6 witnesses, out of which PW-1 Shrirang and PW-6 Shivaji Patil, Police Office can be termed as material witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had admitted that PW-6 Shivaji Patil, Police Officer has not supported the prosecution. The evidence of PW-1 Shrirang is required to be disbelieved as he has not been able to fix the identity of the respondents. This is relevant because said PW-1 Shrirang has stated in his evidence that he knew all the respondents by face. In my view, the prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of the 11 respondents through PW-1 Shrirang as merely knowing respondents by face is not sufficient. There is nothing on record to show that PW-1 Shrirang knew names of all the : 3 : A-4517-10=.doc respondents. To that extent, the testimony of PW-1 Shrirang cannot be accepted in favour of the prosecution. The testimony of PW-3 also does not support the prosecution in as much as there is no link established between PW-3 Sanjay Gade and all 11 respondents with reference to their identity. There is nothing placed on record to show that PW-3 Sanjay Gade had a chance to know all 11 respondents by their first name or surname, as the case may be. 3. It has been the prosecution case that PW-3 Sanjay Gade was assaulted. However, the medical officer examined by the prosecution does not support the case that PW-3 Sanjay Gade, had suffered some injuries in the course of incident. 4. There is one more aspect which is required to be noted namely lodgment of the FIR at the belated stage. The incident had taken place on 14th October 2007 and the FIR is lodged by PW-3 Sanjay Gade on 18th October, 2007. It is pertinent to note that the said PW-3 Sanjay Gade was in the custody of the Police / company of the police from 14th October, 2007 to 18th October, 2007. In such situation, if Sanjay Gade was an eyewitness to the entire incident and had suffered injuries, what prevented Sanjay Gade from lodging the complaint in the police station is not explained. After having considered the entire material, I am : 4 : A-4517-10=.doc not inclined to accept the stand of the State that the impugned judgment given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara is incorrect. Findings given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge need not be interfered. 5. In view of above discussion, this Criminal Application is dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)