1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1145 of 2008 (The State of Maharashtra v. Madhav Shankarrao Chandankhede and 32 others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri J.B. Jaiswal, APP for Applicant/State. Shri M.B. Naidu, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : K.J. Rohee & B.P. Dharmadhikari, JJ. DATE : 14th July, 2008 1. Heard the learned APP for the applicant/State, and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that Police Constables Bute and Suresh were deputed to search accused Ranjit Khandalkar, who was absconding, in connection with Crime No.44 of 2005. On 25-11-2005 around 6.30 p.m., the said Police Constables arrested Bandu Khandalkar, the brother of absconding accused Ranjit Khandalkar, at Bus Stand, Pohana, Tah. Wadner, Distt. Wardha, and from there they brought the accused to Police Station Wadner. It is further alleged that a mob led by accused No.1 attacked the Police Station. They beat the police officials and damaged the property of the Police Station. In support of these allegations, the prosecution examined PW 1 PC Mahadeo Tadas, PW 4 HC Gajanan Koparkar, PW 5 PC Omprakash Ingole, PW 6 PC Balasaheb Jadhav, PW 7 PC 2 Shrikrishna Lanjewar, PW 8 ASI Bapurao Bhagat, PW 14 HC Vishwanath Madavi, PW 15 Dy.SP Chandrakant Hatwar, and PW 18 PI Uttam Sukhdeve. 3. The Trial Court found that the evidence of these witnesses is full of inconsistencies, material omissions and contradictions. It did not find evidence of any of these witnesses trustworthy. It has also come in evidence that since there was no electricity, the assailants could not be identified. It is also important to note that Police Constables Bute and Nawathe, who arrested Bandu Khandalkar at Bus Stand, Pohana and brought the accused to Police Station Wadner, were not examined. In view of this, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that there is no perversity in the said judgment. Hence we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Lanjewar