1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 120/2008 Sadashhio Rupla Jadhao ..vs.. Babarao Ramsingh Rathod & 4 ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J. Y. Ghurde, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Rai, Advocate h/f Mr. Mirza, Advocate for applicant nos. 1 to 4. Mr. D. B. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant 5. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 17 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Non applicant nos. 1 to 4 faced trial in the Court of Jt. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha under Section 325 r/w section 34 and 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 65/2000. The learned Jt. J.M.F.C., Darwha (hereinafter referred to as learned ‘trial Judge) by his judgment dated 06.06.2007 acquitted non applicant nos. 1 to 4 of all the charges. Against that order, this criminal revision application is filed by the applicant, who was the victim of the occurrence and had filed the first information report. 3. I have, with the assistance of learned Advocate Mr. Ghurde, perused the record and considered the 2 submissions. He submitted that in the course of trial, the Medical Officer was not examined and, therefore, the medical evidence could not be brought before the Court. According to him, the learned prosecutor could have taken steps to examine the medical officer even by seeking non bailable warrant. 4. So far as this aspect is concerned, I have perused the impugned judgment. Bailable warrants were issued against the Medical officer, however, he did not respond. 5. The matter pertains to the year 2000. It would not be proper for this Court to direct that the Medical officer should be called to record the medical evidence particularly, when the ocular testimony rendered by applicant Sadashiv (PW1) and his daughter by name Purna (PW2) is considered by the learned trial Judge as not acceptable. To that extent, the argument is rejected. 6. I have perused the impugned judgment and record with reference to the evidence of the applicant Sadashiv (PW1) and Purna (PW2). Except these two persons, there is nobody who said to have seen this 3 occurrence. The evidence of Sadashiv (PW1) does not gather support from Purna (PW2). After going through the evidence and record, the learned trial Judge has though it fit to acquit non applicant nos. 1 to 4. Having considered the entire record, I am also not inclined to take a different view in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is also required to be noted that the learned trial Judge has observed in paragraph 23 that the material witnesses were available for interrogation. However, their statements came to be recorded after a month. This will equally to go suggest that there was a chance for improving the story. 7. Considering the entire record, I am inclined to observe that this is not a case where the Court should interfere. The application is required to be dismissed at the admission stage. Hence, the order. The application is dismissed. JUDGE kahale