1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3978 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant VERSUS Shivaji s/o Baburao Birajdar and others ...Respondents ..... Shri S.D.Kaldate, advocate for the applicant ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 11.02.2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.) 1 This is an application preferred by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, rendered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 116 of 2007, on 8.8.2009, acquitting the respondents/accused nos. 1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 324, 336, 337, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal 2 Code. 2 It is alleged that victim Panduang Gundaji Gajile was returning from coin box phone to his house on 28.5.2007 and at that time accused no.4 Sangram Birajdar, accused no. 11 Vasant Birajdar, PW6 Udhav Birajdar and other accused assaulted him by means of stones and sticks and thereby he sustained injuries and expired on 2.6.2007. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses to substantiate charges levelled against the respondents/accused. 3 We have perused the R. and P. , as well as perused the impugned judgment and it appears that there are in all four eye witnesses i.e. PW4 Udhav Marde, complainant injured, PW5 Gunwant Gajile son of the vicim, PW6 Mahadeo Mande and PW7 Ishwar Palkule. However, on perusal of their testimonies, it appears that there are contradictions in the testimonies of said eye witnesses inter se. PW5 Gunwant Gajile has stated in his deposition that accused nos. 8, 9 and 17 assaulted the victim; whereas PW6 Mahadeo Mande has deposed in his testimony that accused nos. 17, 9, 15 and 8 assaulted the deceased; and PW7 Ishwar stated in his deposition that accused nos. 8, 9, 10 to 17 and 12 assaulted 3 the victim. Pertinently, PW8 Shakuntala wife of the victim stated in the cross-examination that she reached on the spot after the occurrence of the incident. Besides that, PW6 eye witness Mahadeo Mande has nowhere stated in his deposition, as to which specific weapon was used by accused no. 17 Sanjay Biradar, accused no. 9 Santosh and accused no. 15 Shamrao, and he has denied the contents of portion marked ‘A’ in his cross-examination. 4 It also appears that PW3 Dr. Sudhir Chavan examined the injured accused persons, namely Vasant, Laxman, Mangalbai and Ramrao and their injury certificates are at Exhs. 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59, but the prosecution has not explained the said injuries sustained by the accused persons. It also appears that there is variance between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence on record. 5 In the light of the afore said matter and on perusal of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered view that after scrutinizing the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge has adopted possible view and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Judge for the conclusion of acquittal cannot be faulted with. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned 4 judgment, it also appears that there is no perversity found in arriving at the conclusion by the learned Trial Judge acquitting the respondents/accused persons. 6 In the circumstances, present application bears no substance and same sans merit, and therefore, same stands dismissed and leave stands refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crap3978.09