- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1780/2010 The State of Maharashtra. ...Applicant.. Appellant Versus Syed Mohemmad s/o Syed Maheboob, & 17 others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri N.R. Shaikh, APP for applicant. Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 7 and 10 to 18. Respondent nos.8 & 9 deleted as per Court’s order dated 26.7.2010. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR , JJ. DATE: 02.09.2010 PER COURT : 1] This is an application filed by the applicant – State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, dated 25.1.2010 in Sessions Case No.45/2008, acquitting the respondents for offences - 2 - punishable u/s 147, 148, 452, 307, 324, 323 and 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act. According to the prosecution, PW 1 Syed Nazir Syed Dagdu had sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. The trial Court at para 10 found that PW 1 had not only changed the scene of the offence, but his evidence in respect of the injuries sustained by him and the situs of the injuries was not corroborated by the medical opinion. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was unsafe to implicitly accept his testimony and, therefore, turned to the evidence of PW 3 Sultana Syed Nazir – wife of PW 1. Upon appreciation of her evidence, the trial Court also observed that the evidence of PW 3 Sultana Syed Nazir, far from corroborating the evidence of PW 1, was in contradiction to the evidence of PW 1. The trial Court then examined the evidence of the other witnesses namely PW 4 Syed Sharif Syed Noor, PW 5 Syed Shahed Syed Babulal and PW 6 Syed Farana Syed Nazir and upon appreciation of their evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there were inter-se variance in between the evidence of injured witnesses on most material and vital aspects of the prosecution case and, therefore, it was unsafe to rely upon their evidence. The trial Court also found that about 12 accused had sustained injuries, which were not explained by the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, non-explanation of the injuries sustained by 12 accused was fatal to the prosecution case. The trial Court, for the reasons which are ascribed in the judgment, did not find the evidence relating to the discovery of the weapons to be reliable. - 3 - 2] We have heard Shri N.R. Shaikh, learned APP for the applicant and Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. We have also perused the findings recorded bay the trial Court and examined the evidence of the witnesses from the record and proceedings, which were called for by this Court. Upon such examination, according to us, there is no perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to justify grant of leave to the applicant. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view taken on the basis of the evidence on record. In that light of the matter, there being no merit in the present application, the same is dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V. Potdar , J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr29106