mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2514 OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. APPLICANT Vs. APRUGA SRIRANG DHAKANE & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V. B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: 12/7/2010 P.C. The State of Maharashtra has challenged judgment and order order dated 30/1/2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2003. By the said order learned Sessions Judge has convicted Dattatraya Shamrao Jankar original accused 13 for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. He is inter alia sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. Learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused 1 to 12 of the said offences. Charge of conspiracy is held to be not proved. 2. In our opinion, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal cannot be faulted because the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove the guilt of accused 1 to 12. 3. At the outset it must be stated that accused 1, 5 and 10 are dead. The convicted accused 13 was working as a driver with accused 6 Shivaji Dhakane. Accused 2,3,4,7,8 and 12 are members of the Dhakane family. Evidence on record establishes that the relations between the complainant i.e. father of the prosecutrix and the accused were strained. Apart from the evidence of the prosecutrix and her father there is no evidence on record to prove that accused 1 to 12 entered into a conspiracy and instigated accused 13 to commit the offence. The case of the prosecutrix that on 9/5/2000, she went to the house of accused 3 where all other accused were present and they forced her to marry accused 13 does not appear to be truthful. According to the prosecutrix the other accused brought cash from the bank and handed it over to accused 13. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to substantiate this case. Accused 13 is not related to rest of the accused. He was working as a driver with some of them. Apart from the fact that the prosecution has not adduced any cogent evidence, it does not stand to reason that accused 1 to 12 will conspire and instigate accused 13 to kidnap and rape the prosecutrix. The prosecution has failed to prove it’s case as against accused 1 to 13. The view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view which cannot be disturbed in this appeal against acquittal. 3. Leave refused. Application is dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)