1408crra297.07.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2007 1. VANITA UTTAMRAO KADU WARAZADI, YAVATMAL .. APPLICANT VERSUS 1. GISISH MORESHWAR CHOUDHARI & 2 ORS. WARAZADI, YAVATMAL 2. MORESHWAR URUSHOTTAM CHOUDHARI 3. JAYA GIRISH CHOUDHARI .. RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Anup Dhore, Advocate with Dr.Anjan De, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rahul Tajne, Advocate for the respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 14TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. : 1. At the instance of one lady, by name Vanita Kadu-the applicant, First Information Report came to be registered against three respondents herein in regard to an incident which is said to have been taken place on 02/4/2005 and according to Vanita (PW-3) respondents assaulted her with stick and ‘Matiche Dhekle’, etc. The respondents had to face the trial under Section 324 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in regular criminal case No. 371 of 2005 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Yavatmal. In the course of trial, Vanita (PW-3) and her son Shrikant (PW-4) could be treated as eye witnesses in 1408crra297.07.odt 2/3 as much as PW-3 was the victim and PW-4 Shrikant was the person who had seen the incident. The learned J. M. F. C. at the end of the trial acquitted the respondents of charge under Section 324 read with Sec. 34 I. P .C. by judgment and order dated 07/5/2007. Against this judgment and order dated 07/5/2007 Vanita has filed this revision application. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Dhore for the applicant tried to submit that learned J.M.F.C. erred in acquitting the respondents and in his submission, evidence of Vanita ought to have been accepted as trustworthy and based on her evidence, conviction could have been recorded. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment. I have perused the evidence of Vanita (PW-3) and her son Shrikant (PW-4). In the first place evidence of Vanita goes to show that respondent No. 1 is said to have assaulted her with stick whereas respondent No. 2 threw ‘Matiche Dhekle’ towards her. No role is attributed to respondent No. 3. Whereas, Shrikant (PW-4) states that respondent No. 1 assaulted Vanita with stick and respondents No. 1 and 2 abused her. Considering the nature of the eveidence, it is clear that both these witnesses are not talking in unison and this is how the learned J.M.F.C. was right in discarding their evidence for the purposes of arriving at the final conclusion and to that extent no infirmity can be found in the impugned judgment. 4. The argument advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Dhore that the Medical Officer who had examined Vanita (PW-3) was not examined and according to 1408crra297.07.odt 3/3 him, he could have thrown some light on the injury suffered by Vanita. Since the evidence of Vanita (PW-3) and her son Shrikant (PW-4) is ultimately found to be unreliable taken together, there is no question of the prosecution improving its case by examining the Medical Officer. Once the evidence of the eye witnesses is disbelieved, even if medical evidence is recorded, it would not help the prosecution to ask for conviction. To that extent, the argument is required to be rejected. 5. After having gone through the entire record, I am inclined to observe that the learned trial Judge has taken correct view of the matter based on the evidence. No interference is required in the order of acquittal and the revision application is required to be rejected at the stage of admission. Revision application is rejected at the stage of admission. JUDGE wwl