1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2930 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Daithana, District Parbhani ....Applicant. Versus 1. Gunaji Tukaram Lokhande, R/o. Borwand, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani and others ....Respondents. Shri. S.V. Kurundkar, A.P.P. for for applicant. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 14th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. The applicant/State, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani dated 19.5.2009 in Sessions Case No. 97/1998, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 324, 325 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, by this application, seeks leave to file appeal against acquittal. 2 2. We have heard Shri. Kurundkar, learned A.P.P. with whose assistance we read the findings recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court in respect of evidence of P.W. 4 Wahidabi has observed that undisputedly the order of injunction was operating against the complainant party in respect of the disputed plot. It has been further observed by the trial Court that initially the first information report came to be lodged against 22 accused persons, but in the supplementary statement additional names came to be disclosed and in all names of 53 persons came to be disclosed and in chargesheet there are 44 persons. The trial Court then observed at para 25 that the testimony of Wahidabi was inconsistent with the contents of the F.I.R. The trial Court further observed at para 25 of the judgment that the witness Wahidabi for the first time introduced the part of the incident which had occurred in the house. There was no reference to the house or its examination for presence of blood stains on spot by the Investigating Officer, as in the F.I.R. the place of incident as house was not disclosed. The Court therefore came to the conclusion that if the version of P.W. 4 Wahidabi was to be believed, some blood stains ought to have been found at the spot. The trial Court further observed in para No. 26 that there was material variance in respect of the spot of incident and overtacts of the accused in the testimony of P.W. 4 Wahidabi. At para No. 27 of the judgment the trial Court has dealt with the evidence of P.W. No. 5 Shaikh Wali. The trial Court at para No. 28 has observed that in the light of material contradictions as regards occurrence of incident in the versions 3 of said two witnesses, it was not safe to place reliance on the testimony of P.W. 5 Shaikh Wali. The trial Court further observed at the conclusion of para 28 that P.W. 5 had not attributed specific overtacts to any of the accused. Further, at para 29 of the judgment, the trial Court has observed that since P.W. 5 Shaikh Wali had became unconscious, it appears that P.W. 5 was knowing about the incident i.e. the second incident and therefore, he had avoided, telling the details about the assault at the second time that he is stating that he is unconscious. 3. The trial Court has further observed in para 32 that the version of this witness is not corroborated from the contents in the F.I.R. and there were material contradictions in his statement before the police and the version before the Court. In respect of evidence of P.W. 7 Shahajanbi, the trial Court has observed that this witness has falsely impleaded large number of accused. In respect of evidence of P.W. 9 Shaikh Antul, the trial Court found that from the evidence it was doubtful as to whether this witness was present and whether he had immediately informed about the incident to Shaikh Dastagir and whether Shaikh Dastagir had immediately gone to the police station. The trial has Court further observed that on the contrary, it appears that after the entire incident was over, Shaikh Dastgir had come there and thereafter he had gone to police station and lodged the report. In respect of evidence of P.W. 10 Ayeshabi, the trial Court at para 39 of the judgment has observed that she had not specifically stated the names of the appellants and the 4 weapons used by the assailants. This witness has also not attributed any specific role to any of the accused. The trial Court, therefore, concluded at para 39 that it was difficult to accept that this witness was an eye witness to the incident. The trial Court further concluded that P.W. 4 and 10 appeared to be present inside the house at the time of the first incident. In respect of evidence of P.W. 11 Banubi, the trial Court has observed at para 40 of the judgment that this witness had not specifically stated as to whether blow was given by sword, axe or sticks and she had not attributed specific role to any of the accused. The trial Court further observed that her evidence was vague on the point of assault inflicted to Shaikh Bashir at Suripimpri road. With the assistant of the learned A.P.P. we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and upon its perusal we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning given by the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court is possible view on the basis of evidence on record. 4. In that light of the matter therefore, this application, which is without any merit, is dismissed. Leave refused. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] ssc/criapln2930.09