drp {1} Cri. Application No.4375/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4375 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Rameshwar Kisanrao Kadam & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.G.Patil, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 25th January 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. By this application, u/s 378 (1) (3) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant State, seeks leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case No.99/2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable u/s 143, 454, 380, 436, 427 with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. drp {2} Cri. Application No.4375/2010 2. The case of the prosecution is that after the unnatural death of Lankabai, wife of complainant and daughter of respondent No.1, some 50/60 persons came in a tempo and ransacked the house of the complainant, looted certain articles and set his house on fire. Accordingly, complaint was lodged, pursuant to which offence at Crime No.67/2008 was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused, thereafter, JMFC had committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, including the complainant and two alleged eye witnesses before the trial court. The witnesses could not identify the respondents, except respondents No.1 and 2, so also the alleged recovery of the TV set was not proved. The remaining witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Nothing incriminating was recovered at the instance of the respondent- accused. Therefore, the trial court was of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondents were the participants in the alleged offence, as none of the witness could identify them. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court gave benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents and accordingly acquitted them. 3. With the assistance of learned APP, we have perused the record and proceedings, so also the judgment of acquittal, rendered by the trial court. After going though the record and proceedings as well as the impugned judgment we find that the drp {3} Cri. Application No.4375/2010 view taken by the trial court is a probable view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. When two views are possible from the material on record and the view taken by the trial court is a probable view, then there is no need to interfere with the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court. As the view taken by the trial court does not appear to be perverse, we do not think it necessary to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, there being no merit in the application, the application is rejected. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln4375-10