1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRI. REVN. APPLN. NO.: 159 OF 2006 Sitabai W/o Bhagwat Ughade Versus State of Maharashtra and others *** Mr. K. M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the Respondent/ State. Mr. N. D. Sonawane, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 12. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 12. The counsel for the complainant is absent. Same position on 3rd August, 2009 and 21st August, 2009. On both the occasions last chance was indicated. However, it is not honoured. 2. The complainant lodged a report on 6th May, 2002 before the police making several allegations against Respondents having committed offence punishable under sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 509 of IPC. The learned Judge, on analysis of the evidence, by order dated 2nd March, 2006, acquitted the accused. The state has not preferred appeal and consequently the revision by the original complainant. 3. The accused had defence of total denial. The prosecution put in seven witnesses to prove its case. The observations of the learned Judge in para 9 of the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. judgment, giving the details of the cross examination, as to Rekha Shah and others did not talk with the accused and consequently there was no reason for the accused to be annoyed. In para 11, the learned Judge has dealt with the evidence of informant regarding extensive beating as the same is not established in the medical evidence. There was no injury certificate produced on record. Informant informed that the incident was witnessed by her grand-daughter, however, said grand-daughter's statement was not recorded. Consequently, no evidence. Thus, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Judge was on critical analysis of the evidence. I do no see any infirmity therein, requiring interference. Criminal Revision Application Dismissed. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:05/09/2009. ans/159