1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No. 422/2011 In Criminal Appeal No./------/2011. The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S.: Civil Lines, Akola vs. Vilas @ Raju Laxman Wawge ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mrs. S.S.Jachak, APP for the applicant. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 5.7.2011 Heard the learned APP for the applicant- appellant. 2. The applicant – State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the Judgment and order dated 5th March, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 52/2009. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2` 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: Arun (deceased) was the father of P.W.1 Ravindra. Arun was a rickshaw puller. It is the prosecution case that on 2.11.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. the respondent- accused assaulted Arun with an iron pipe on his head and leg. The incident was witnessed by P.W.6 Mohan. Arun was admitted in the hospital. He died on account of the injury on head. FIR came to be lodged by P.W.1 Ravindra After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 4. Charge came to be framed against the respondent under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondent is of total denial and false implication. The further defence of the respondent is that there was previous enmity between him and the family of the deceased. Arun died on account of injuries sustained in an accident and taking advantage of the said fact, the respondent was 3` falsely implicated. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent – accused as stated above. Hence, this application for leave to file appeal. 5. We have heard the learned APP for the applicant- State. We have perused the evidence in the present case as well as the Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, for the reasons stated hereinafter, we are of the opinion, no interference is called for in the Judgment and order of the trial court. 6. The star witness in the present case is P.W.6 Mohan. He is the only eye witness in this case. P.W.6 Mohan has stated that on 2.11.2007 he was standing on the ST Bus Stand, Akola with his cycle rickshaw. Deceased was also sitting in his cycle rickshaw near the cycle rickshaw of P.W.6 Mohan. The accused came with an iron pipe and inflicted a blow on his head and one blow on legs of Arun. Mohan immediately rushed 4` Arun to the District Hospital in his cycle rickshaw and admitted him. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 Mohan shows that accused assaulted Arun with an iron pipe on the head and on the leg. However, it is noted that except one injury on the head no other injury was found on the person of Arun. P.W.9 Dr. Jawade conducted post mortem on the dead body of Arun. He has stated that if blow of iron pipe was given on the leg of the deceased some injury would certainly have been caused either in the nature of abrasion or contusion. However, no injury is found on the leg of Arun. This raises doubt about the testimony of P.W.6 Mohan. 7. It is the specific case of Mohan that he took Arun to the District Hospital in his cycle rickshaw and admitted him. However, there is no evidence on record to show that Arun was admitted in the District Hospital by Mohan. On the contrary, record shows that Arun was admitted in the Hospital of one Dr. Gadpal. In the cross- examination, P.W.6 Mohan has stated that he signed 5` the Hospital documents when Arun was admitted in the Hospital. However, the documents on record do not show that P.W.6 Mohan had admitted Arun in the District Hospital or even in the Hospital of Dr. Gadpal. On the contrary, Exh. 42 makes it clear that Arun was brought to Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital, Wardha by his son Gajanan. This fact raises further doubt about the veracity of the evidence of P.W.6 Mohan. 8. The defence taken by the accused is that it was a case of accidental death and taking advantage of this fact the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. This defence is supported by the document Exh. 41 which is an extract of the accidental death information of the deceased at Sevagram Police Station, Wardha. It shows that the Police Station was informed that patient Arun was admitted in the Hospital at Wardha and there is a reference that accident had taken place at the Bus Stand at Akola. The fact that it is a case of accident, is also supported by Exh.42 6` which is the report made by Dr. Tapde to P.S.O., Sevagram. The fact that it was a case of accident is further fortified by the document Exh. 47 which shows the history of the injuries was due to accident. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all above aspects as well as other aspects into consideration and thereafter he has acquitted the respondent accused. In a case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dinesh (2009) 3 Scale, 345, which was an appeal against acquittal, the Supreme Court held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion, that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence no case is made out for interference. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the application for leave to file appeal preferred by the applicant- State is 7` rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE patle