1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.175 OF 2009 Dattatray Vithal Kapse .... Applicant Vs. Sayaji Raghu Shinde & Ors. .... Respondents Shri V.V. Purwant for the Applicant. Ms S.V. Gajare, APP, for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 17, 2010 P.C: 1. By the present revision application the applicant challenges the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara, thereby allowing the appeal of the respondents/accused and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence, as recorded by the learned J.M.F.C., Phaltan. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 27-4-2005, at about 2:30 p.m., on Phaltan Pandharpur Road near Shinde Vasti at Village Pimprad, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and caused hurt to the complainant. 2 It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident there was a tamasha show organised in the village and there was a dispute regarding payment of remuneration to the artists and due to which altercation took place, resulting in the victims sustaining certain injuries. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that though the learned trial Court by a well-reasoned order has recorded the order of conviction and sentence, the learned Appellate Court has, on erroneous reasons, upset the same. Perusal of the order of the Appellate Court will reveal that there were various inconsistencies in so far as the evidence of PW-7 was concerned. It is stated that the place of the incident mentioned in the FIR was some thing else and the place of the incident in his deposition was some thing else. It was found that the evidence of the said witness was not of such a nature on the basis of which conviction could be based. It has further been found that though various independent witnesses were available, the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it, has failed to examine them. In the totality of the circumstances, it was found that the 3 prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal and there is no perversity therein so as to warrant interference. Hence the application is dismissed. B.R. GAVAI, J.