[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.812 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Santosh Bhanudas Pawar and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa APP for Applicant-State Mr.V.V.Purwant Advocate for the Respondents ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karad, Dist. Satara in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2001. By the said judgment and order, the Respondents-accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(xi) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that P.W.4 Lata who was 14 years of age at the time of incident, went to [-2-] answer the call of nature. At that time, the Respondent-accused embraced her. She raised cries, whereupon her brother P.W.1 Rajendra and one Alisab came there to rescue her. The accused then abused them and that Accused Nos.2 and 3 threatened them that they will cut off their hands and legs. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant and the learned Advocate for the Respondent-Accused. I have perused the evidence produced before me as well as the impugned judgment and order. 4. P.W.1 Rajendra who is brother of Lata, has stated that he heard cries of his sister and hence, he rushed to the spot and saw the accused embracing his sister Lata. He has specifically stated that Kurta of his sister was torn. However, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 Lata, it is seen that she has stated that when she went to answer the call of nature, the accused came there from behind and closed her mouth by his one hand and he embraced her with the other. If the Respondent-accused had covered her mouth, there was no possibility of Lata raising shouts which could be heard by her brother [-3-] P.W.1 Rajendra. It has come on record that the place where the incident occurred and the house of Lata and Rajendra where Rajendra was at the relevant time, is at a distance of 40 feet. Looking to the evidence on record, it does not appear that Lata could have raised cries, which could be heard by Rajendra. Hence, it does not seem probable that Rajendra could have rushed to the spot. As far as giving of threats that hands and legs will be cut off, it is pertinent to note that Lata does not say so. It is further seen that Rajendra has stated that Kurta of his sister Lata was torn, however, Lata has nowhere stated that her Kurta was torn. Thus on material aspects there is discrepancy. 5. Moreover, in her deposition Lata has stated that she had gone to answer the call of nature at a particular place. However, from the evidence especially that of P.W.3 Janardhan, it is seen that the spot of incident is the sugarcane field which is surrounded by other fields of sugarcane and the said place is not used for answering the call of nature. It is further seen that according to P.W.4 Lata, the incident had taken place at 11 a.m. The [-4-] said day was Monday. Lata was school going girl and her school timings were from 7.30 a.m. to 12 p.m. Lata has nowhere stated that on that day, she had taken a holiday and hence she was at home. In such case, it seems to be improbable that on school working day, Lata would have been at home at 11 a.m. when her school timings were from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. The learned Judge has taken into consideration all these aspects as well as other aspects and has thereafter acquitted the Respondent-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, the view taken by the learned Judge seems to be a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 6. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court could have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has [-5-] observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]