drp {1} Cri. Application No.1112/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1112 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Bhaskar Harishchandra Gambhire & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.K.Tambe, APP for applicant State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 24 th June 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. By the present application, u/s 378 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant-State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.19/2009 acquitting the respondents-accused for an offence punishable u/s 395, 294, 354, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned APP for applicant-State. We have drp {2} Cri. Application No.1112/2011 perused the impugned judgment as well as the Record and Proceedings of the case. 3. It appears that on the report lodged by Ramrao Londhe, an offence at Crime No.131/2008 came to be registered. It was alleged in the complainant that when the complainant, his wife and others went for sowing, the respondents came there, obstructed them from sowing seeds, abused them in the name of their caste and assaulted them with sticks and other weapons. It is further alleged that even the wife of the complainant was also assaulted and the respondents had pulled her sari and attempted to outrage her modesty. It is also alleged that the respondent- accused had also snatched golden ornament from the person of one Surekha. Pursuant to the registration of the offence, statements of the witnesses came to be recorded, Panchanamas were drawn and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before JMFC, Renapur. On being committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, trial court framed charge (Exhibit-17) against the respondents. The defence of the respondents was of total denial and their false implication. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined in all 4 witnesses i.e. complainant, his wife, one Surekha and Prabhakar Nakhate. Admittedly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had investigated the crime, was not examined during the trial. 4. The trial court discarded the evidence of these drp {3} Cri. Application No.1112/2011 witnesses, who claim to be the eye witnesses, mainly on the ground that there was no consistency in their evidence. The trial court also observed that there is variance in the testimony of these witnesses in respect of role assigned to individual accused. Trial Court further discarded the evidence of the eye witnesses on the ground that on the day of the incident Tahsildar had intimated the police that there is possibility of forcible sowing operation in the Government grazing land and hence the law and order problem may arise and, therefore, police staff was directed to be deputed on the spot. Certain documents are on record showing that the police staff was accordingly deputed on the spot and was on duty at the relevant time. However, surprisingly, there is no reference in respect of presence of police at the spot, in the evidence of all the eye witnesses. Considering all these aspects, the trial court has acquitted the accused, by the impugned judgment. 5. With the assistance of learned APP, we have perused the record. We find that there is discrepancies in the evidence of all the three eye witnesses. PW-1 states that he was assaulted by respondent Nos.5, 11 and 14 whereas PW-2 states that only respondent No.3 had assaulted PW-1. Furthermore, PW-3 states that all the respondents assaulted PW-1. Considering this inconsistency in the evidence of the eye witnesses, trial court has rightly acquitted all the accused. Further, as per the version of PW-1, respondents No.12 and 7 tried to remove sari from the person of PW-1, whereas, according to PW-2, respondents No.2 and drp {4} Cri. Application No.1112/2011 4 tried to remove her sari outraged her modesty and PW-3 states that respondent No.2 tried to outrage the modesty of PW-2. Evidence of PW-1 is silent on the point of snatching of golden ornament from the person of PW-3 and according to PW-2, respondent No.2 had snatched the golden ornament from the person of PW-3 whereas PW-3 states that respondents No.2 and 4 had snatched the golden ornament from her person. In respect of abuses in the name of caste, the words, as uttered by the accused, are differently spelt out by each of the eye witness. What were the actual words, which were uttered by the respondents against the witnesses do not find place in the statements of PW-2 and PW-3, recorded by the police. Even admission is brought on record, in the evidence of PW-1 complainant that about the said incident a counter case has been lodged by Sarjerao, respondent No.12 and an offence has been registered against the complainant and witnesses and after committal of the said case, Sessions Case No. 109/2009 has been registered. Furthermore, previous complaints and offences, which are pending against the complainant and the eye witnesses, were brought on record. On account of grazing cattle in the government land by the complainant, relations between the complainant and the villagers are strained. Learned trial court has further observed that though the injury certificates are placed on record, yet perusal of the same would not establish that as to who had inflicted the said injuries. In view of the evidence on record, the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence with which they were charged. After considering the drp {5} Cri. Application No.1112/2011 evidence on record and the finding recorded by the trial court, we are of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is just and proper one and there is no room to infer that the finding arrived at by the trial court is perverse. In our opinion, the view of the trial court is a probable view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In the premise and considering the settled norms, no interference is required in the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Thus, there being no merit in the application, the application is dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/criapln1112-11