Cr.Revn./203/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 203 OF 2009 Vitthal Kisan Kalamkar Age 42 years, Occ. Service & Agri., r/o Avhane (Bk.), Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner VERSUS 1. Eknath Rangnath Dure, Age 47 years, Occ. Agri., 2. Ashok Raosaheb Dure, Age 27 years, Occ. Agri., 3.Kakasaheb Rangnath Dure age 32 years, Occ. Agri., 4.Sudhakar Bhausaheb Dure, Age 30 Years, Occ. Agri., All r/o Avhane (Bk.), Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. 5. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents ... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Yuvraj V.Kakade APP for Respondents: Shri V.D.Godbharale ... CORAM : A. R. JOSHI, J. Dated: September 06, 2011 ... ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent - 5 State. Cr.Revn./203/2009 2 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the revision is heard finally. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Shevgaon, dated 11.9.2007, acquitting four accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The case, in nut-shell, as put forth before the trial Court is that, on 11.4.2004 at about 7.30 a.m. complainant - Vitthal Kisan Kalamkar was opening his STD booth and that time, all the accused came there, two of them holding iron bar and stick respectively. All the accused assaulted the complainant with iron bar, stick, fist and kick blows. After the assault, the accused persons flee away from the spot. The complainant was rescued by the persons who gathered on the spot after noticing the commotion. PW 2 Asaram neighbouring shop owner and PW 4 Shobha - wife of the complainant, were the persons amongst those who gathered on the spot. PW 3 Shivaji was a passer-bye, who also gathered there and allegedly witnessed the incident. However, during the trial, he did not support the case of prosecution and denied having witnessed the incident of assault. Testimony of PW 2 Asaram and PW 3 Shivaji was not accepted by the trial Court as worthy of credence, inasmuch as PW 2 Asaram and PW 4 Shobha gave different versions as to Cr.Revn./203/2009 3 the use of weapons and assault on the complainant. There is also variance in the substantive evidence of these witnesses and the complaint lodged by the complainant PW 1 Vitthal. The trial Court was also weighed with the factual position that the complaint was lodged after 36 hours of the incident and there was a long standing civil dispute pending between the complainant on one part and the accused persons on the other. Apparently, the trial Court disbelieved the alleged eye witness testimony and came to the conclusion that the accused were not the assailants. 5. Considering the substantive evidence of the witnesses, considering the reasoning given by the trial Court and considering the scope of this Court in interfering with the order of acquittal, this Court is not satisfied that this is a matter which requires to be re-agitated now. Hence, there is no substance in the present revision. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Rule discharged. ( A. R. JOSHI, J. ) ... akl