IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2008 MR. DAMODAR KAMAT ... Petitioner Versus MR. MANIKRAO DESSAI ... Respondent Mr. P. P. Singh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. Samant, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 4th August, 2008 P.C.:- This is first informant's revision and is directed against Judgment dated 10-9-2007 of the learned J.M.F.C., Ponda by which the accused has been acquitted under Sections 143, 147, 323, 341, 379 r/w 149 I.P.C. Upon a FIR having been filed by the said first informant against Respondent No.1 and seven other persons, a case came to be investigated by Ponda Police Station and charge-sheet filed only against the Respondent. In other words, the remaining accused were neither arrested nor a charge-sheet was filed against them. In the course of the trial, the first informant was examined as PW1. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 9-11-2005 at 23.00 hours in the restaurant owned by the said first informant. True, the first informant was examined at I.D. hospital at Ponda at 1.00 a.m. and Dr. Vikas Kuvelkar/PW3 found certain injuries on his person, injuries which can be seen from para 10 of the Judgment of the learned trial. The prosecution also examined Samuel Francis as PW4, and, upon considering the evidence produced during the course of trial, the learned J.M.F.C. came to the conclusion that the evidence of the said first informant/PW1 was filled with contradictions and improvements and moreover the same was not corroborated either by Dr. Vikas Kuvelkar/PW3 as well as Samuel Francis/PW4 and therefore proceeded to acquit the accused. Learned Counsel on behalf of the first informant submits that there were in all eight accused involved in the accident and seven of them were not even arrested. Learned Counsel further submits that there were other witnesses present in the said restaurant but their statements were not even recorded. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate did not consider the evidence of Dr. Vikas Kuvelkar/PW3 which corroborated the version given by the said first informant. It is rather too late in the day to make submissions that other accused who were involved were not arrested or for that matter the witnesses who had witnessed the incident, their statements were not recorded. The learned trial Court has found the evidence of the first informant/PW1 inconsistent in that there were too many improvements as well as contradictions in his evidence. Moreover, it can also be found that the injuries described by Dr. Vikas Kuvelkar are certainly incompatible with the nature of assault described by the first informant/PW1. The version given by Samuel Francis/PW4 was also not in consonance with the version given by the first informant/PW1. If the first informant's version itself could not be accepted, the learned J.M.F.C. could not be faulted in acquitting the accused. In my view, there is neither perversity nor legal infirmity in the Judgment of the learned trial Court, to call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Petition therefore, is dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.