AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2529 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Vs. Ganesh Maniappa Dhotre & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: MRS. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 14TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. The State of Maharashtra has challenged order dated 8/1/2010 passed by District Judge – II & Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.206 of 2009, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 295, 452, 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). 2. We have heard Ms. Kantharia, learned A.P.P. appearing AJN 2 for the State. The prosecution story basically rests on PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad, the injured witness. According to PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad, on 30/9/2008 at about 10.30 p.m., when he was standing at the Rickshaw stand, Mahaveer Chowk, Chinchwad Road, accused Ganesh Dhotre and others came there and assaulted him with iron rod and sattur. Accused Ganesh Dhotre and Anil Deokar were having iron rod and Atish More was having sattur. According to him, they beat him with the weapons on his left hand, head and legs. His left thumb was injured. According to him, accused Laxmi More and Sangeeta More caught hold of his legs and other persons beat him mercilessly for about 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, Maruti Laghate came there and took him to Supertech Hospital. 3. There are important omissions in his evidence which have been brought on record. In his statement before the police, PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad has not stated that the accused beat him for 15 to 20 minutes and that accused Sangeeta More and Laxmi More held his legs and other AJN 3 persons beat him and his left thumb was injured. He has not stated before the police that accused Ganesh Dhotre and Anil Deokar were having iron rods and Atish More was having Sattur and his wife was present at the spot at the time of incident. It is, therefore, difficult to place implicit reliance on the evidence of PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad. Besides, we notice that PW-7 Dr. Deepak Ranade has in his evidence stated that PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad was in the hospital only for 24 hours. He left the hospital against medical advice, therefore, PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad appears to have exaggerated the incident. It is significant to note that PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad has admitted in his evidence that there are criminal proceedings against him and, he was externed by the Additional Commissioner of Police. 4. PW-1 Surekha Gaikwad, the wife of PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad has tried to support her husband. But, she does not appear to be a truthful witness. While PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad has admitted that criminal proceedings are pending against him and he was externed, PW-1 Surekha AJN 4 Gaikwad has gone to the extent of denying it. According to the prosecution, the accused assaulted PW-1 Surekha Gaikwad because she told Sushma Gaikwad to lodge complaint against him. PW-4 Radha Gaikwad, mother of Sushma Gaikwad has stated that some complaint was lodged about one year back. PW-1 Surekha Gaikwad does not lend the necessary corroboration to PW-2 Bhaskar Gaikwad. The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view, which does not merit any interference. Hence, leave refused. Application is dismissed. [MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.]