1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.219 OF 2006 Premashri d/o Madhukarrao Dandekar - PETITIONER (Orig. Complainant) VERSUS 1) Keshav s/o Govindrao Deshmane and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate holding for Mr.Vijay Sharma,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.R.R.Chandak, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for Resp.No.2-State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) The acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate and CJSD Parbhani in RCC No. 553 of 2004 by order dated 28th March, 2006 is assailed by the complainant/petitioner. It is contended that learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective, 2 which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The accusation is proved by the prosecution against Respondent No.1/accused, however, three witnesses, namely, PW.1 to 3, who have supported the prosecution are not believed by the learned Judge. 3) On analysis of the evidence recorded by the learned Judge to the points formulated by him to the extent of accused committing house trespass after preparation of hurt, assault or wrongful restrain, or whether the accused used criminal force against the complainant with intent to outrage her modesty, the learned Judge found that these aspects have not surfaced in the manner they were legally required to be. 4) The evidence of the victim was more leaning with additions divorced from what was the incident, she was asserting. The complainant has asserted that she was moving in the court-yard after taking meal, while the panchanama at Exhibit-17, shows that the incident has taken place in the house of Smt. Indumati Madhukarrao 3 Dandekar, who is mother of the complainant bearing House no. 373. This mismatch remained to be explained by the prosecution. The observations of the learned Judge, on analysis, do not warrant any interference as there is no infraction of appreciation of the evidence. No question of law could be said to be erred. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv219.06