1 CRI.APPEAL NO.14/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1. APEAL/14/2011 DATTATRAY BALASAHEB BHAVAR [Criminal] V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS WITH APPLN/427/2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S ASHOK MUKTAJI BORUDE AND ORS -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Criminal Appeal No.14/2011: Mr.S.S.Deshmukh, Adv., for appellant. Mrs.S.D.Shelke, APP for State. Mr.N.B.Narwade, Adv., for R.Nos. 2 to 8 and 13 to 17. Criminal Application/appeal No.427/2011 Mrs. S.D.Shelke, APP for appellant. Mr.N.B.Narwade, Adv., for R.Nos. 7 & 12 to 16. Mr.S.J.Salunke, Adv., for R.No.9, 10, 11. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE:SEPT.,23rd, 2011 ... 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.S.S.Deshmukh for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.14/2011 and learned A.P.P. Smt. S.D.Shelke in the appeal preferred by the State. 2. Perused impugned judgment and evidence forming part of paper-book. 2 CRI.APPEAL NO.14/2011 3. The case rests on testimony of PW No.1 Dattatraya (Exh.80) and PW No.2 Bandu (Exh.93) who are eye witnesses. 4. In the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge has, after appreciating the evidence, discussed worthiness of these witnesses, in paragraph nos. 43 onwards, and found that their testimonies are contrary to one another, leading to suspicion as to presence of PW No.1 Dattatraya. 5. We notice upon perusal of testimonies of PW No. 1 and PW No.2, including their cross examination, that the finding of learned Sessions Judge about testimonies of these witnesses, being contradictory to one another, is well founded. 6. In the result, the case turns out to be one in which the guilt of the accused was not proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. 7. It is not shown that the finding is perverse. Criticizing the appreciation of evidence, without cogent reasons therefor or, pointing out failure to consider any piece of evidence on record, does not lead to possibility of interference. 8. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the appeals since, merely because second view is available, it would not constitute a ground, for entertaining the possibility that, the impugned view is capable of being reversed. 3 CRI.APPEAL NO.14/2011 9. We, therefore, dismiss both the appeals; so also, the State's application for leave to prefer appeal. (A.R.JOSHI) (A.H.JOSHI) JUDGE JUDGE ... agp/14-11cr.a