spb/- 1 apln5839-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5839 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. (Org.Complainant) V/s. 1. Ajay Baburao Karale & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for the Applicant-State. None for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : P. V. HARDAS & M.N.GILANI,JJ. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011. P.C. 1 This is an application at the behest of the Applicant -State, seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nasik dated 22.07.2010 in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2007, acquitting the respondent accused for offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 37 (1) read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2 The investigation in to the said crime commenced on the basis of the first information report lodged by the PW-2 at Exh. 73. PW-2 claimed to have seen the incident while standing in the gallery of his flat. In the cross-examination PW-2 has admitted that the place of the incident was not visible from the gallery of his flat. The trial court, therefore, has chosen not to place any reliance upon the evidence of PW-2. Further we find that there are material omissions in respect of the recitals in the first information report. The prosecution has also examined PW-1, who spb/- 2 apln5839-10.sxw was eye witness to the incident. Curiously enough the PW-1 was associated as a panch witness, thereby his statement came to be recorded as witnesses. In any event PW-1 has clearly admitted that he was not knowing the accused either by face or by name. The trial court, therefore, concluded that the in the absence of any test identification parade, no relevance could be placed on his testimony. PW-11 did not support the prosecution and is accordingly declared as hostile. PW-13 was also sailing in the same boat as of PW-1 as he has admitted that he was not knowing the accused either by name of by face. The prosecution also examined PW-14. This witness claimed to be an injured witness but unfortunately no medical certificate was placed on record. The presence of this witness is not referred to by other witnesses. The trail court concluded that the testimony of this witness did not expire confidence of the court. Similar is the case of PW-16. The trial court came to the conclusion that the evidence of this witness was contrary to the evidence of the other witnesses and none of the other witnesses corroborated the testimony of this witness. 3 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence recorded by the trial court and upon such perusal, according to us, no perversity is noticed in the reasoning of the trial court, warranting any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. In that light, the criminal application is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. [M.N.GILANI,J.] [P.V. HARDAS, J.]