1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.463/2009 The State of Maharashtra .. PETITIONER VERSUS Govind Kashinath Mathpati and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri B.J.Sonawane,APP for petitioner Shri U.B.Bilolikar,Adv.for respondents 1 to 4. .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & R.K.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 30/06/2009 ORAL ORDER : This is an application filed by the applicant State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli dated 14/10/08 in Sessions Case No.7/06 acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Section 307 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. 2. It appears that on 9/2/2004 at about 8 p.m. the complainant had inquired with the accused as to why they had broken the column of the common wall existing between the house of the complainant and 2 accused, all the accused thereupon rushed upon person of the complainant and assaulted him by means of iron rod on his head, arms, both shoulders and on his forearm. The accused had also threatened the complainant that they would kill him. 3. The prosecution examined P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 as eye witnesses of the incident. The trial Court by its judgment at paragraph 12 has given reasons as to why no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the said witnesses. The trial Court found that according to P.W.5 only accused nos. 1,2 and 3 were present and P.W.5 had not referred to the presence of accused no.4, while the evidence of P.W.4 indicates that a scuffle had taken place between the complainant and accused no.4 and P.W.4 had separated the accused and the complainant and at that time, accused no.2 had assaulted him by means of fists blows and pieces of bricks. According to the complainant, he was caught by accused nos.1,2 and 4 and thereafter accused no.4 had assaulted him by an iron rod. In the light of the discrepancy in the evidence, the trial Court found that no reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the said witness. At paragraph 13 of the judgment, the trial Court has dealt with the medical evidence and as the medical officer had opined that the injuries sustained by the complainant could be caused by complainant coming into contact with hard and blunt object,the trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the 3 accused by holding that possibility could not be ruled out that the complainant had sustained the injuries on account of fall. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court appears to be a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence of record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasonings of the trial Court warranting any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, Criminal Application is dismissed. Leave refused. [R.K.DESHPANDE] [P.V.HARDAS] JUDGE JUDGE umg/criapln463-09