drp {1} Cri. Application No.4831/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4831 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Yamunabai Baban Satre & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 25th January 2011 PER COURT: 1. Present application has been filed by the applicant- State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the District Judge-3 & Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dated 05.08.2010, in Sessions Case No.193/2009, acquitting the accused for an offence punishable u/s 452, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 395 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting accused No.2 for an offence punishable u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution, in support of its case, principally relied on the evidence of PW-3 Sharda and her daughter PW-4 Bhagyashri. It appears that PW-3 Sharda, whose modesty was outraged and who was assaulted, had filed First Information drp {2} Cri. Application No.4831/2010 Report at Exhibit-33. In the aforesaid report PW-3 Sharda had stated that unknown persons, numbering about 10 to 12, had entered in her house and committed dacoity and in the course of dacoity had outraged her modesty and had assaulted her. In the substantive evidence PW-3 Sharda had maintained that she knew accused No.1 and 2. Despite knowing accused No.1 and 2, the report was filed against unknown persons. PW-4 Bhagyashri was examined as witness during the trial, but it transpired that her statement was not recorded during the investigation. The trial court came to the conclusion, after appreciating the evidence of PW-3 Sharda and PW-4 Bhagyashri, that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of these two witnesses. The trial court accordingly acquitted the accused-respondents. 3. We have heard learned APP for the applicant and we have perused the depositions from the record and proceedings, which had been called for by us. Upon such perusal, according to us, the view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial court, to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, there being no merit in the application, the application is dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln4831-10