1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.835 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..APPELLANT VERSUS Sanjay Badakh & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr N.N. Jadhav, APP for the appellant CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009. PER COURT : The appellant – State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents/accused for offence punishable under section 436, 342 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed the present appeal assailing the judgment. It appears that the accused have been convicted for offence punishable under section 323 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code on the accused furnishing a bond of good behaviour of Rs.1,000/- each for a period of two years. The date of the said judgment is 26.9.2006. 2. The evidence as against the accused in respect of the offence punishable under section 436 and 342 of the Indian Penal 2 Code consists of the complainant, who is examined as P.W.1, P.W.5 Mirabai and P.W.4 Shivaji. The Trial Court at paragraph 21 of the judgment has observed that undisputedly neither P.W.1 complainant nor his wife P.W.5 Mirabai had actually seen any of the accused setting the roof of the house on fire. The Trial Court further at paragraph 22 has dealt with the omission in the testimony of P.W.5 Mirabai in which she had stated that she had actually seen from the window accused Ramesh handing over match box to accused Sanjay and accused Sanjay setting the roof on fire. This has been proved to be an omission and, therefore, since the omission is on material aspect of the prosecution case, the Trial Court has declined to take this evidence into consideration. Evidence of P.W.4 Shivaji is to the effect that after hearing the hue and cry he rushed towards the house of the complainant and had seen the accused fleeing from the scene of the offence. The Trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that apart from this evidence there was no evidence of unimpeachable character. The prosecution also has not examined independent eye-witnesses in support of the charge. Apart from this circumstantial evidence of seeing the accused fleeing from the scene of the offence, there is no other evidence which would connect the accused with the commission of the crime. The Trial Court, therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused in respect of offence punishable under section 436, 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced the accused for offence punishable under section 323 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 1. 3. We have heard Shri Jadhav, learned APP appearing for 3 the appellant – State and we have also heard Shri R.R. Karpe, learned Counsel representing the original complainant in Criminal Revision Application No.61 of 2008 which has been filed assailing the acquittal of the accused. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court and we have also perused the evidence on record. The view taken by the Trial Court, according to us is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record and we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this Criminal Appeal No.835 of 2006 fails and is dismissed. Leave refused. Consequent upon the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal against acquittal, Criminal Revision Application No. 61 of 2008 is also dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] amj/cria835.06A 4