IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.618 of 2007. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.618 of 2007. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.618 of 2007. Nirmala Parmeshwar Koli ..Applicant versus Suresh G. Bhave & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S. Sakhare for the Applicant Mr.H.J.Dedhia for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. DATED : 4th June, 2008. P.C. 1. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 faced trial under Section 427, 435, 436, r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC before the 3rd Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur, hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Judge in Sessions Case No.14/2003. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 3 of the charges for which they had to face the trial. The present applicant is the complainant in the said case and has filed this revision. 2. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Sakhare in support of the revision and Mr. Dedhia on behalf of the State. The learned trial Judge has scanned the entire evidence and has rightly come to -2- the conclusion that the only witness whose evidence is required to be scrutinized for the purpose of appreciating the allegation against the respondent Nos.1 was the complainant, who according to the prosecution was an eye witness. The learned trial Judge considered the pros and cons of the matter and in particular the reliefs where she has levelled allegations against all the three respondents of indulging in overt act by putting the house on fire. According to the applicant, she reached the site i.e. her house early in the morning at 5.30a.m. and she has seen respondent Nos.1 to 3, though she does not allege as to who has actually put the house on fire. She has also alleged of some persons being near her house. It is also required to be stated that she did not shout after she saw the incident of putting the house on fire. All these factors have been considered by the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge has refused to accept the evidence of the complainant as trustworthy. The aspect of motive against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 was also considered by the learned trial Judge and that was done against the applicant. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to -3- observe that no interference is required particularly because the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted by the learned trial Judge and the grievance against the impugned judgment is as regards improper appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial Judge. In my view, no serious infirmities are shown as regards appreciation of evidence and that thee is no need to interfere with the same. Hence revision is required to be dismissed in limine. Hence the Order. ORDER . Revision is dismissed. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)