1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213/2008 Sayda Anisa Fatima. APPLICANT V E R S U S Shafiullaah s/o Jahiroddin Jahagirdar and others. RESPONDENTS Shri S.M.Ganachari h/f Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.W. Munde Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 7. Mr. N.R. Shaikh A.P.P. for State R-8. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S.M. Ganachari h/f Advocate Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, who appears for the petitioner, Advocate Mr. S.W. Mundhe for respondents No.1 to 7 and learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh for respondent No.8. 2. Petitioner is the original complainant. At the instance of petitioner offence under section 498-A, 323, 504 , 506 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against respondents No.1 to 7. Investigation was carried on. Charge sheet was filed. It was RCC No.753/2000, in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Latur. Respondents No. 1 to 7 were tried and on trial all of them have been acquitted by the trial court 2 by the judgment and order dated 05.07.2006. State had filed Criminal Appeal No.33/2006 before learned Sessions Court, at Latur. In that appeal present respondents No. 1 to 7 were respondents. Appeal filed on behalf of the State was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge on 15.07.2008. Said order, now, is challenged by filing this criminal revision application by the original complainant. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. In the case on hand alleged incident is dated 28.10.2000. According to complainant, she was being ill-treated by respondents No. 1 to 7 for non fulfillment of demand of Rs.50,000/-. On the date of incident, complainant was residing with her parents and brother in Government Quarter at Latur. To substantiate the contentions raised in the complaint, around four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Trial court considered evidence led on behalf of the parties, had reached to conclusion that no offence under section 498-A, 504 r.w. 34 is established. Consequently respondents were acquitted. 4. I have seen the judgment of the trial court as well as Appellate Court also. Both the courts on appreciation of the evidence on record, refused to accept date of incident as 28.10.2000 and incident as claimed by the present petitioner original complainant. On appreciation of the evidence on record, both of the Courts reached to the conclusion 3 that complaint filed by the complainant is not substantiated by cogent evidence. Delay is also noticed by the courts below. It remains unexplained. 5. After hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the judgment in the case on hand, no case for converting acquittal into conviction is established. 6. Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. No costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. ... aaa/213.08