1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2008 * Vishwambhar S/o. Hanumant Sonnar, Age 38 years, Occupation agriculture R/o. Wadkhel, Taluka Parli-V, District Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Police Station Parali Taluka Parali, District Beed. 2) Manik S/o. Namdeo Borade, Age 45 years, R/o Wadkhel, Taluka Parli-V, District Beed. 3) Bhimrao s/o Ramkisan Deokate, Age 40 years, R/o As above. 4) Damodhar s/o. Ramkisan Deokate, Age 40 year, R/o As above, 5) Manik s/o. Ramkisan Deokate Age 35 years, R/o As above. ... Respondents. -------- 2 Shri. Kiran B Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. R.R. Mane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1. Shri. V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL, J. DATE: 21st AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The respondents – accused were charged for offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the charge was that the accused committed mischief by destroying a land mark i.e. Stones fixed by the officers of public authority, voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and his father and also intentionally insulted the complainant and his father. 3) From the judgment of the trial Court it transpires that the spot panchanama could not be 3 proved. The prosecution witnesses could not substantiate the allegations regarding causing hurt or removing stones from the place. Independent adjacent land owner was not examined in support of the prosecution. It seems that there is some bickering between the complainant and the respondents as some civil litigation is pending between the parties and it was possible that the accused were involved in the offences. The witnesses were related and interested also. 3) In substance, the trial Court after going through the evidence reached proper and appropriate conclusions by appreciating the evidence. I do not find any apparent error in examining the evidence by the trial Court. The trial Court acquitted the accused for want of cogent and reliable evidence. 4) Considering the limitations on examining the evidence and entertaining the revision application filed under section 397 or 401 of 4 the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not find that the revision application requires to be admitted by this Court. The same therefore stands dismissed. (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crra.2.08