IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Application No.1137 of 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 2003 The State of Maharashtra. .Appellant vs Dilip Gurkhoji Kakade & Anr. .. Respondents Smt V.R. Bhonsale A.P.P. for the appellant. None for respondents. CORAM: V.G.PALSHIKAR,Acg C.J. ,& NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: AUGUST 17, 2006. P.C.: Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on merits of the matter. 2. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment the learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the evidence of the complainant. The accused were charged with different offences. The prosecution case was that the accused deliberately set on fire the cattle shed and the house of the complainant. The complainant has deposed to it in court. His evidence is rejected by the learned Judge by saying that the conduct of the complainant in keeping quiet when the house and the cattle shed were burning, not calling for help from the neghbourhood, was such which militates against the case of the complainant and his testimony. Similarly the evidence of P.W.3 Rajaram is discussed and rejected. The reasons for rejecting this evidence are not perverse. Factually, it is a correct appreciation of evidence on record resulting in acquittal of the accused. In our opinion, therefore, no case is made out for interference. Hence the application for leave is rejected.