1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2008. Narayan Chandroba Rankhambe - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Vivek V. Kulkarni, Adv. h/for Mr. AS Bajaj, Adv. for Applicant; Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 26th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of parties. 2) The acquittal of the accused/Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 herein in Special Case No. 5 of 2006 for several penal provisions and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, recorded on 14.2.2008, is subject of challenge by the original complainant/petitioner herein. 3) With the assistance of both the counsel, having gone through the evidence and also the judgment under challenge, the assessment of the 2 evidence by the learned Judge, it was pointed that PW 1 – Narayan has stated that the complainant was sitting in Gram Panchayat office, where the discussion ensued. It is not indicated that Narayan left Gram Panchayat office and went to Baudha Wada, where the so-called incident is said to have taken place. The report (Exhibit-56) is totally silent to this effect. The learned Judge found, based on the circumstances that the incident in Baudhwada is concert. The testimony of Narayan could not be accepted to be of ocular account. The incident at ST Stand at Sonpeth, to which a reference was given, was also disbelieved by the learned Judge with proper reasons. The survey of evidence carried by the learned Judge with the witnesses brought by the complainant, were more or less interested in impressing for conviction of the accused also needs consideration. The variation in the timings mentioned in Medico legal injury certificate (Exh.61 to 63) tendered and the timings referred about the incident also was exposing with yawning gap. During the course of submission, learned Counsel invited my attention to a Medical certificate at page 97 of Narayan, which display that it was a bruise at the face right mandible side – 1” x 1” x 1”, it was irregular. By any logical conclusion, said bruise cannot be said to have been effected by 3 any hard and blunt weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence by the accused. The defence pointed that had the alleged incident really occurred in the manner stated by the prosecution witnesses, someone from the injured/victim would have approached the police earlier. However, no such exercise was made. 4) PW. 2 – Bhaskar Laxman Rankhambe claimed having suffered injury, for which Exhibit-62 was tendered. However, the certificate indicates there is no visible injury on the body of PW 2. 5) The assessment of the evidence by the learned Judge, in reaching to the conclusion of acquitting the accused/respondents by the judgment and order dated 14.2.2008, cannot be said to be infirm or de hors the record. The view taken by the learned Judge was only possible view in the set of evidence and documents produced before him. Consequently, Criminal Revision Application dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv123.08