1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 47/2008 Shailendra Madhukar Ingle ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and 6 ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Zoting, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1 Mr. Sirpurkar, Advocate for non applicant nos. 2 to 7. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 12 th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Non applicant nos. 2 to 7 had to face trial in the Court of Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, being Sessions Trial No. 7/2005 under Section 143, 147, 148, 323 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in regard to the incident which is said to have taken place on 24.04.2005, where according to the prosecution, the present applicant suffered certain injuries. Non applicant nos. 2 to 7 were acquitted of all the charges, for which they were required to face the trial, by judgment and order dated 27.11.2007 passed by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. 2. The present applicant is the victim of so called occurrence and has filed this application challenging judgment and order dated 27.11.2007. 2 3. Before this Court, the learned Advocate for applicant took me through the points which came to be framed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and in particular point no. 1 which relates to forming of unlawful assembly with common object to assault on the complainant and his family members and to intimidate them by abusing with reference to their caste. Learned Advocate Mr. Zoting submitted that there is no reference in point no. 1 with reference to the allegations of causing simple hurt to the victims and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind from that angle and that is how he acquitted the non applicant nos. 2 to 7 of all the charges. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for applicant. It is required to be mentioned that learned Additional Sessions Judge has, after considering the entire recored, come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of all the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a good an reasoned order acquitting non applicant nos. 2 to 7. He also acquitted non applicant nos. 2 to 7 of charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 5. In my view, even though the arguments advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Zoting is to be accepted, still non framing of proper point of determination could be a ground for the accused who could have stated that they had suffered prejudice at the time of trial. In my view such an argument is not available to the victim, who has come to this Court and instituted the present application, particularly when the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the entire record from all the angles and has arrived at a conclusion that non applicant nos. 2 to 7 deserve acquittal. 6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, points raised by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted and the application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Hence, the order. The revision application is dismissed. JUDGE kahale