1 Cri.Appln.No.214/07 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.214 OF 2007 Shamal K. Yeshvantrao ...Applicant. v. Arvind B. Yashwantrao & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Sachindra B. Shetye, adv. For the Applicant. Mr.Aniket Nikam, adv. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Y.S.Shinde, APP for the R.No.3/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 3, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Delay in filing the revision application is condoned for the reasons given in the application. 2 The revision application is filed against the acquittal of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Prosecution case appears to be that on 21.10.2003, the accused persons had assaulted and beaten the complainant and had torn the blouse of the complainant, P.W.2 Shamal. On behalf of the prosecution, four witnesses were examined. The learned trial Court minutely considered the evidence of P.W.1 Kamlakar, 2 Cri.Appln.No.214/07 husband of the complainant and came to conclusion that Kamlakar and another witness, Santosh were not the eye witnesses and they had come at the spot after the incident and they were informed about the incident by P.W.2 Shamal. The learned Magistrate also noted that even though according to P.W.2 Shamal during the incident, her blouse was torn and due to bleeding from her mouth, her handker-chief was stained with the blood, neither her torn blouse nor her blood stained handker-chief was seized. There is no evidence to corroborate her testimony. The learned Magistrate also noted that there were civil disputes pending between the parties. There was delay of one and half year in lodging the F.I.R. about the incident. She had also filed applications marked A, B and C to the superior officers alleging that the police was not taking action on her complaint. However, those applications were dated 28.1.2003, 11.2.2003 and 28.10.2003. Third one was filed long after the F.I.R. was registered. Other two were also filed shortly before the F.I.R. was registered. There is no explanation for the delay of about 15 months in lodging F.I.R.. Even if the police was not willing to take action, she could have filed complaint before the Court, which she did not . 3 It is well settled position of law that in an appeal or revision against the acquittal, appellate or revisional Court will not interfere in 3 Cri.Appln.No.214/07 the order passed by the trial Court unless it is per-se wrong , illegal or perverse and that such a conclusion could not have been drawn by any ordinary prudent person on the basis of evidence on the record. It is also settled position of law that if two views on the basis of same evidence are possible, appellate or revisional Court will not interfere in the view taken by the trial Court. I do not find that the impugned order was either perverse or totally illegal or against the record. 4 Therefore, revision application stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)