1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.327 OF 2009 Dadasaheb Vishnupant Solanke, A/P.Brahmanwadi, Tq.Partur, Dist. Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and others RESPONDENTS Smt.S.L.Awchar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 04/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present revision application, the applicant/original complainant challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the J.M.F.C. Partur in SCC No.144/2006 in which the Trial Court has acquitted respondent no.2 to 8 from the offence punishable u/s. 448, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for applicant/original complainant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Also perused the judgment impugned in the present case, the documents exhibited before the Trial Court as well as the copies of deposition 2 which are placed in my hand and were annexed alongwith the present revision application. As the revision application is filed u/s. 401 of Cr.P.C., there is very limited scope to find out whether any patent illegality is committed while acquitting these respondent no.2 to 8. 3. Considering the fact that the private complaint came to be lodged by the present complainant before the Trial Court which was numbered as SCC No.144/2006, for the allegations against these respondents no.2 to 8 that in violation of injunction order, these respondents forcibly entered in the field of complainant by committing criminal trespass and tried to cut the Babul trees standing in the said field. When the complainant objected the acts of these respondents, scuffle took place in which the complainant was assaulted by these respondents. At that time, intervention is made at the hands of prosecution witness Devidas who is also a panch witness to the panchnama drawn when the complaint came to be lodged in the police station. 4. It appears that during the trial, apart from the complainant, panch witnesses as well as so called eye witnesses were examined. The panchnama was exhibited by consent. In the present case even though the panch witnesses turned hostile, makes no difference on the merit of that case. The only question whether the testimony of complainant, the present revision applicant to be believed in the light of statement/deposition of the so called eye witness recorded before 3 the Trial Court by name Devidas Solanke. The Statement of this person is totally silent on the point of cutting of tress as well as the assault on the present complainant at the hands of these respondents. Apart from it, the entire case of the complainant was defused by the contents of the panchnama which on clear perusal make it clear that neither a single tree was cut nor there are signs of cutting of trees found at the time of panchanama, which falsify the entire case of the complainant. If there is no cutting of tress as witnessed by the spot panch, the alleged criminal trespass is not supported by the independent witness, neither the attack on the complainant is supported by the so called eye witness, the Court is of the view that considering the reasoning recorded by the J.M.F.C., no interference is required at the hands of this Court. Revision sans any merit, hence to be dismissed in limine. Revision application stands dismissed accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.rev.327-09