1 (APPLN 1216.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1216 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant. (Orig. Complainant) Versus Pandit Ananda Bagul .... Respondent (Orig. Accused) ---- Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the Applicant – State. ---- CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C.:- 1. This application for leave to file appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik dated 18/03/2011. By the said judgment and order, the Sessions Court was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. He has taken us through the judgment and order of the Trial Court as also through the notes of evidence. 2 (APPLN 1216.11) 3. Prosecution case is that the respondent/accused assaulted Jyoti by throwing stone on her forehead and by pressing her throat with nylon string and after she became unconscious, took away her golden mangalsutra, ear-rings and nose-rings. A complaint, therefore, was filed against the accused and the accused was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge. Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, was pleased to give benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of the offences with which he was charged. 4. We have gone through the notes of evidence which has been supplied by the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and also the judgment and order of the Trial Court. 5. It is a settled position in law that while exercising jurisdiction under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, High Court is not expected to substitute its view to the one which is taken by the Trial Court, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the said view is not based on material which is there on record or comes to the conclusion that the said view which is taken by the Trial Court is a perverse view. It is also a settled position in law that if two views are possible and the view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view, then, in that case also, High Court should not take a different view and convert the order of acquittal into the order of conviction. 3 (APPLN 1216.11) 6. In the present case, it has to be noted that P.W.1 – Arun Jadhav who is the husband of Jyoti has stated that on 30/12/2009, he alongwith his wife and mother were supplying fertilizers to their grape garden and they all worked in field till 5.30 p.m. and, thereafter, he, along with his mother, went home on his tractor while his wife Jyoti was returning with buffaloes to their house. According to him, since his wife did not return for about 15 minutes, he went to his field on a motor-cycle. He found that his wife was not there on the field and was missing and the buffaloes were grazing in the field. He, therefore, called his wife and since he did not receive any response, he took the buffaloes and went home and made inquiry with his mother whether his wife had returned home. Thereafter, he alongwith his mother again went to the field in search of Jyoti and after searching her for about half an hour in the field, he made a search in the surrounding area. Thereafter, when he went near his motor-cycle, he found that Jyoti was standing near his motor-cycle and she had sustained injuries and there were blood stains on her blouse and on her face and when he made inquiry, she informed him that accused had assaulted her and had taken away her ornaments. A complaint was filed on the next day at Vani Police Station. The statement of Jyoti was recorded few days after the incident was over. P.W. 2 – Jyoti in her statement has stated that after her husband and mother-in-law had gone home on their tractor, she could not untie the rope which was tied to 4 (APPLN 1216.11) the buffalo and, therefore, she requested one boy who was passing by the side of their land to help her and the said boy came there and removed the rope of the buffalo from the babul tree. According to her, she went in their grape garden since her other two buffaloes were tied inside the garden and, at that time, according to her, the said boy came and pressed her neck and shut her mouth by another hand and pushed her on the ground and then he forcibly pressed her throat and dragged her towards the grape garden and assaulted her with a stone on her left side cheek and then forcibly removed her mangalsutra, tops and nose-rings from her person and then ran away. According to her, she regained consciousness after half an hour and saw her husband and mother-in-law. She has further stated that she then told her husband that the accused who was working in the grape garden had assaulted her with stone and had forcibly taken away her golden ornaments. 7. Trial Court, in our view, was justified in giving benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused and not believing the statement of P.W. 2 – Jyoti. P.W. 2 does not state that she knew the accused. She has stated that one boy helped her in untying the buffalo. She does not state that this boy was working for them. She has not stated that though she knew him by face she did not know his name. No test identification parade has been held by the Investigating Officer. There is also delay in recording her statement. Trial Court has also noted that the Asstt. Doctor had given an 5 (APPLN 1216.11) opinion in his cross-examination that the said injury could be caused if a person fells on stone on the left side of the face. In our view, therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court and view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view. 8. Leave is therefore refused. Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)