1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2774 OF 2008 Smt. Vaishali Waman Mhatre ..Petitioner versus Smt. Lata Ramnath Keny & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. A. Sawant for Petitioner. Mr. Bharat Bahal for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6. Ms. M. H. Mhatre – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the learned Sessions Judge upholding the acquittal of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in a complaint in respect of FIR lodged by the petitioner under Section 143, 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Against acquittal the petitioner has preferred Revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge has agreed with the trial court and maintained the acquittal. Hence this writ petition. 2 2. Mr. Sawant the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was evidence of a witness which shows that the accused entered the room where the complainant was residing and beat her. According to the learned counsel if this evidence would have been considered the case could not have resulted in an acquittal. A perusal of the evidence relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz. that of P.W. 5 Nirmala Gajanan More does not support the contention of the learned counsel. The witness has stated as under: “.........I say that Lata, Alka, Urmila had entered in the house of Vaishali & assaulted her & abused her. I was seeing from outside. They kicked the tin sheet & it was damaged. I cannot say who kicked the tin sheet. It was a big rush & hence I could not identify as to who kicked the tin sheets. I hidden myself in the room of Gawli. I heard the accd. person said let us beat her i.e. me, hence I had hidden myself........” The witness has not stated that the accused beat the complainant. The witness has used the words “assaulted” which does not connote the use of criminal force as understood in criminal law. Thus seen the evidence of the said P.W 5 Nirmala Gajanan More is no different from the evidence of the 3 other witnesses which have been considered by the courts in details and appraised for coming to the conclusion of acquittal. In fact the trial court has observed vide a paragraph 9I that the accused entered the house of the complainant and kicked the tin sheets. They witnessed. P.W. 5 Nirmala Gajanan More had stated that they had kicked the tin sheets but she is not sure as to who had personally kicked tin sheets and is unable to identify the said person. The trial court has therefore observed that it is clear that a witness has not clearly seen as to how the incident has taken place. As regards the injuries said to have been found on the complainant the trial court has observed that the medical evidence is to the effect that the injuries can be result of a fall and will not occur necessarily due to the use of criminal force. 3. Having considered the entire matter, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court and the sessions court was not a possible view. It is settled law that acquittal cannot be disturbed unless two views are not possible at all. That not being the case there is no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)