1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2008 * Mahadev Balu Khamgal, Age 35 years, Occupation : agriculture, R/o. Thetewadi, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) Bhiwa Rambhau Khamgal Age 44 years, Occupation: agriculture, R/o Thetewadi, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. 2) Appa Rambhau Khamgal, Age 30 years, Occupation: agriculture, R/o Thetewadi, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. 3) The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Nitin V. Gaware, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.D. Kotkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.3. -------- 2 CORAM: NARESH H PATIL, J. DATE: 21st AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence on record. The respondents – accused had committed offence for which they should have been punished. 3) The trial Court considered the evidence of the prosecution. The petitioner – Mahadeo deposed that he was beaten by accused No.2 by axe. The father of the petitioner was also beaten by the accused by kicks and fist blows. 4) It seems that the dispute between the petitioner Mahadeo and the accused relates to the land. The Medical Officer PW 2 deposed that he examined Mahadeo. According to the doctor, the injury was not possible due to assault by axe. 3 The Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. 5) Considering the relations between the parties and the evidence on record the trial Court acquitted the accused persons by passing a reasoned judgment and order. The witnesses are interested and related with each other. Therefore, it creates doubt as regards the truthfulness of the prosecution case. So the case is not established beyond reasonable doubt. 6) This is a revision petition filed against the order of acquittal. The State has not preferred any appeal. Considering the limitation on exercise of powers under Section 401 or 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not find this to be a fit case for admission. 7) The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crra.99.08