1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2106 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanaded APPLICANT VERSUS Pintu @ Dhananjay S/o.Narayan Bharde Age-29 years, Occu : Nil, R/o.Kamari, Tq.Himayat Nagar, Dist. Nanded RESPONDENT Mr.D.R.Kale, learned A.P.P. for applicant. Mr.G.R.Ingole, learned counsel for respondent. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 13/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. By the present application u/s. 378(1)(3) of The Cr.P.C., the State/applicant seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.89/2009 dated 18/02/2010, by which the respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable u/s. 436, 429 of The IPC. 2. Heard learned A.P.P. for State, and learned counsel for 2 respondent. We have also called the record and proceedings in Sessions Case No.89/2009. With the assistance of learned A.P.P., we have perused the judgment dated 18/02/2010, as well as the record and proceeding of the said case. 3. It appears that on the complaint of P.W.No.2 Hemrao Deoraye, an offence was registered in Himayat Nagar Police Station against the accused vide CR No.5/2009 on 13/01/2009 wherein it is alleged that in the early hours of 13/01/2009, at about 3.00 a.m., respondent herein set the cattle shed of the complainant Bhimrao Deoraye on fire, due to which he sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- It is also alleged that during the said fire, two bullocks of witness no.3 Kondba Suryawanshi also sustained burn injuries, due to which he also sustained loss to the extent of Rs.40,000/- It appears that after the complaint was lodged, police visited the spot, prepared the spot panchnama, and also took the photographs of the scene of offence. The bullocks were referred for medical treatment to the Veterinary Surgeon. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. After passing necessary committal order, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. It appears that, to substantiate the charge lavelled against the accused, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses including the complainant, panch witnesses, servant of the complainant and Investigation Officer. By the judgment dated 18/02/2010, the Lower 3 Court pleased to acquit the respondent accused from the charges lavelled against him. The State, by the present application, seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal in Sessions Case No.89/2009. 5. Perusal of the record as well as the judgment of the Lower Court, it appears that the Lower Court has disbelieved the testimony of the complainant as well as of the eye witnesses i.e. Kondaba as well as the servant of the complainant by name Pralhad P.W.No.4. According to them, the alleged incident took place in the early hours at about 3.00 a.m.,, but it appears from the endorsement on the complaint that the complaint was lodged somewhere at about 2.00 a.m. of 13/01/2009. It is observed in para no.10 that it is not possible that the complaint can be lodged earlier to the incident. Evidence of these witnesses also disbelieved on the ground that it is admitted by P.W.N o.1, the panch witness that the bullocks of witness Kondba sustained burn injuries when they were tied in the cattle shed of complainant situated in the field of witness Kondba. At the same time, there is no reference that the bullocks were tied in the cattle shed of the complainant at the time of alleged incident. The FIR is silent on this point. The respondent was also acquitted on the ground that in the statement before police of witness no.3 Kondba, witness no.4 Pralhad, the servant working with Bhimrao, they have not stated that they have witnessed that the respondent was the author of the incident. Perusal of the record and proceeding supports these observations in para no.10 of the judgment of the 4 Lower Court as the factum that they witnessed the respondent setting the cattle shed of the complainant on fire. These omissions found place in the cross examination of these witnesses examined before the Lower Court. 6. Considering this record, the view taken by the Lower Court while acquitting the respondent in the said Sessions Case appears to be a possible view. In the premise, according to us, no interference is required in the said judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Lower Court at the hands of this Court. In substance, there are no merits in the application. Leave refused. Application stands dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.appl.2106-10