1 Cri.Revn.Appln. No.225/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4275 OF 2011 Shaikh Shafik s/o Shaikh Chunnu ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri R.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 14th December, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused Criminal Revision Application and the annexures thereto particularly the impugned judgments passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No. 89/2010 and by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No.47/2010. 2. The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and held the accused Shaikh Shafik Shaikh Chunnu guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 342 of the Indian Penal 2 Cri.Revn.Appln. No.225/2011 Code, 1860. This decision was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 47/2010. 3. It was the prosecution case that the minor daughter of the complainant Shafik Khan Pathan went missing around 7.30 p.m. on 11.3.2010 and on a search made for her, she was found in a closed room in company of the naked accused, the petitioner herein. Complaint was promptly lodged and crime being C.R. No. 17/2010 was registered around 0030 Hrs. on 12.3.2010 with City Police Station, Beed. In due course, the investigation was completed and charge sheet was lodged against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Beed. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the charge under Sections 363, 366-A and 342 of the Indian Penal Code was duly framed. 4. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Shafik Khan Chhote Khan, the complainant, P.W.2 Shaikh Atik Shaikh Wajir, P.W.3 Wajed Khan Chhote Khan Pathan, P.W.4 Shaikh Jahur Shaikh Abdul, P.W.5 Sayyad Ali Sayyad Umar and P.W.6 Ferojkhan Salarkhan. Defence of total denial was taken by the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court considered the entire evidence from all angles and 3 Cri.Revn.Appln. No.225/2011 on giving reasons at para 22, refused to convict the accused under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing indicated before this Court to suggest that the approach of the trial Court and the appellate Court was perverse or any illegality had crept in the adjudication of the issues before them. Criminal Revision Application, therefore, deserves to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. 6. In view of the dismissal of Criminal Revision Application, the Criminal Application No.4275/2011 stands disposed off. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/crra225.11