1 (APPLN-1041.2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1041 OF 2011 (For Leave to Appeal) The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant. V/s Ramsagar Basant Prasad & Ors ..... Respondents. Dr. F.R. Shaikh, A.P.P for the Applicant-State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 7th DECEMBER, 2011 P.C.:- 1. The State has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune whereby he was pleased to acquit the Respondents of the offences punishable under sections 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and under sections 143, 147, 452, 395, 323, 354, 506(2) read with sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 (APPLN-1041.2011) 2. Prosecution case is that on 23/10/2009, according to the complainant, the accused Ashok Basant Prasad, his wife Sangita Ashok Prasad, brother Ramsagar Basant Prasad and their servants Bipin, Ashok and Mamu came in front of the house of the complainant and started abusing them in the name of their caste and also threatened them that they would be shot dead with the fire arm which was in their possession. It is also alleged that after the complainant and his mother entered in their house, accused also entered in the house of the complainant and there was a scuffle and blouse of the mother of the complainant was torn and her mangalsutra was snatched by the accused Ashok Basant Prasad and this was witnessed by his friends Dharmendra Pardhe and Ajit Padwal. The complaint was registered at Hinjawadi Police Station after a lapse of 19 days i.e on 12/11/2009. 3. Trial Court, after perusing the evidence which was brought on record, held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond the reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. 4. Prosecution relied on the evidence of the complainant – Prashant Pralhad Bansode (P.W.1), his wife Nirmala Pralhad Bansode (P.W.2) and another eye witness Ajit Ramchandra Padwal (P.W.3). 5. We have gone through the notes of evidence which is 3 (APPLN-1041.2011) annexed to the application for leave to file appeal by the learned APP for the State. Defence has established in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the father of the complainant was working as a commission agent of the accused and it has been brought on record that several amounts were deposited in the Bank Account of P.W.2 and that the relations between the complainant and the accused were very cordial. Trial Court, therefore, disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and had given cogent reasons for the same. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 17/11/2009, almost after one month. The said P.W. 3 – Ajit Padwal has also not named the accused in his examination-in-chief. Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond the reasonable doubt. 6. We do not see any infirmity in the said judgment and order of the Trial Court. No case is therefore made out for grant of leave. Leave is refused. Appeal is dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (APPLN-1041.2011)