IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 81 OF 2008 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 344 OF 2008 STATE THROUGH P. I. ATTACHED TO PONDA POLICE STATION ... Applicant Versus SHRI. UTTAM GAUDE AND 15 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Mr. N. N. Sardessai, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 4th August, 2008 P.C.:- The State has sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 504 r/w 149 I.P.C. vide Judgment dated 10-10-2007 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. Heard Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Applicant and Mr. N. N. Sardessai, learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents/Accused. Upon a complaint filed by Jivaji Gaude/PW1, the case was investigated against 17 accused by the Ponda Police Station and a charge-sheet was filed against them under the aforesaid Sections. The learned J.M.F.C. by Judgment dated 30-4-2005 had convicted all the 17 accused, one of whom expired before the appeal filed by them came to be heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. It appears that there were several mistakes noticed in the Judgment dated 30-4-2005 of the learned J.M.F.C. and those mistakes were sought to be brought to the notice of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application(M) No.159 of 2007 and by Order dated 5-7-2007 the learned Additional Sessions Judge was directed to deal with the same whilst dealing with the appeal filed by the accused. It appears that the incident of 17-12-1999 took place between two groups of persons who are admittedly related to one another and whose houses are also situated at close distances and as far as the scene of offence is concerned, there appeared to have been more places than one, as deposed by the witnesses. It also appears that even the panch witness had enmity with the accused persons and on that count, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has scrutinized the prosecution evidence very closely, and, in my view, rightly. The entire case of the first informant Jivaji Gaude was that he was at his house at about 9.00 p.m. on 17-12-1999 when he heard some noise behind his house and therefore he along with Novso Gaude/PW3, Amar Gaude/PW4, Mohan Gaude/PW7, Shantaram Gaude/PW8 and one Rajiv Gaude went running to the spot and when they reached there, he saw accused No.1, accused No.3, accused No.4 and accused No.13 assaulting them with iron bars, dandas and stones and due to the assault Mohan/PW7 and Shantaram/PW8 received severe injuries. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has noted, and, in my view rightly that Jivaji Gaude/PW1 was unable to state as to which of the said accused assaulted which of them. If the version of Jivaji Gaude/PW1 is that on reaching there they saw Chandrakant/PW9 being assaulted, the latter has given entirely different version which is not in consonance with the version given by Jivaji Gaude/PW1. If as per Jivaji Gaude/PW1 the alleged incident took place in the courtyard of the house of Navso/PW3 which is at a distance of about 40 to 50 meters from his house and which has an enclosure, the version given by Chandrakant/PW9 is that the incident took place near the road and the very fact that scene of offence differs in the versions given by them that was sufficient to raise a doubt that they were not giving a correct picture of the incident. The learned trial Court has also noted that the clothes of many of the prosecution witnesses were found near the cowshed near the road and there was no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution witnesses as to how their clothes were found there. Added to that, it was proved by the defence that Vishwajeet/A-4 had suffered a clean lacerated wound on his scalp which was attended to by Dr. Valadares/PW16 and none of the prosecution witnesses were able to explain as to how Vishwajeet/A-4 had suffered the said injury. The prosecution had also not examined any independent witnesses including the said Rajiv Gaude who is stated to have accompanied Jivaji Gaude/PW1. Considering the conflicting versions given by the prosecution witnesses, the injuries on Vishwajeet/A-4, the Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the truth about the incident was shrouded in mystery, and, it is rightly so. The incident had taken place at about 9.00 p.m. and that too near the house of Prakash Gaude/A-3 and quite far away from the house of Jivaji Gaude/PW1 and in that incident some of the accused had also suffered injuries. There have been conflicting versions given by the prosecution witnesses not only as regards the place but also in the manner in which the incident took place and therefore it was quite possible that it is the said prosecution witnesses who went and assaulted the accused. In the light of the above, this does not appear to be a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Application dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.