1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO..171 OF 2011 Latika Subhash Bhosale Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents Mr.R.V.Bansode for applicant. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for State. Mr.Pratap Patil for respondent nos.2 and 3. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATE : 29th November 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The revision application is filed challenging the acquittal of respondent nos.2 and 3 for the offences punishable under section 435, 427 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the prosecution case that on 24th November 2011 when the complainant was feeding the cattle by collecting the fodder in the field, accused no.2 having match-stick box in his hand came there and set the sugarcane on fire and ran away. The accused no.3 allegedly broken the pipeline in the field of the complainant. 2. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined five witnesses including the Investigating Officer. It is the case of the prosecution that the incident is witnessed by PW-3 and PW-4 apart from the complainant. PW-3 has stated so before the Court, however, there appears to be some improvement in his version. Insofar as PW-4 is concerned, he has stated that he has not personally seen the alleged incident and the accused on the spot. The Investigating Officer (PW-5) has stated that none of the witnesses whose statement has been 2 recorded by him during the course of investigation has disclosed the names of the accused alleging that he had set the sugarcane field on fire. 3. So far as complainant is concerned, the FIR was lodged on the next date of incident i.e. on 25th November 2002 in which the names of the accused were disclosed. However, on 26th November 2002 she gave an application to the Talathi in which she has stated that unknown persons put her sugarcane on fire. 4. With the help of learned counsel for parties I have gone through the impugned order carefully and I find that the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The criminal revision application accordingly stands dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.)