1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2012 OF 2009. Tarabai W/o Jalindar Rindhe, ... Applicant. Versus Gorakhnath S/o Vitthal Rindhe and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.K.N.Lokhande, advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.07.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondent in a private complaint Case (RTC No.175/2003) for offence punishable U/s 435 read with Section 34 of the 2 I.P.C. 3. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal. The petitioner filed private complaint case alleging that the Respondents committed mischief by setting fire to the dry leaves of sugarcane in his agricultural land bearing Gat No.165 and caused damage to the trees of Mango, Guava etc. She alleged that she suffered loss of about Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The petitioner/appellant examined three (3) witnesses. The learned Magistrate noticed that there was enmity between the parties because her two sons were previously accused of committing murder of the son of the Respondent No.1/accused No.1 and both the sons have been convicted by the Sessions Court. The petitioner could not prove that the trees were damaged as a result of alleged incident of fire set to the dry leaves of sugarcane plants. The two witnesses examined by the petitioner did not give consistent versions. The admissions of the witnesses indicated that due to barking of dog, they had awaken from slumber and thereafter 3 noticed that the dry leaves of sugarcane crops were burning beneath a Mango tree. It is obvious that they did not see the Respondents while setting fire to the heap of dry leaves of sugarcane. In this view of the matter,the assessment of evidence as done by the learned Magistrate can not be faulted with. There is no serious infirmity in the impugned order of acquittal. Leave refused. Petition dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp201209