- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (St.) No. 192 OF 2010 Sanjeev Nivrutti Ovhal .. Applicant Vs. Nandkumar Pandharinath Kurhade & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir, for the Applicant. Mr. D. R. More, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2010. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for admission by consent of the parties. 2. By the present revision, the applicant takes an exception to the order dated 23-9-2009 passed by the Special Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2007, acquitting the accused/respondent No.1 herein, of the offence punishable under section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and - 2 - section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 3. It is case of the prosecution that the complainant who at the relevant time was working as the Chief Officer, Alandi Nagar Parishad, Taluka Khed, District Pune, had started the work of removal of encroachment. It is case of the complainant that on 18th August 2007 when the complainant was in his office, the accused accompanied by other persons, had brought one donkey and hung board on the donkey, having written that “vlk eh eq[;kf/kdkjh] vkGanh uxj ikyhdka”. It is further prosecution case that thereafter the accused by taking the name of the accused stated that the person belonging to such caste is not entitled to stay in Alandi. 4. The learned trial Court found that except the evidence of the complainant, there was nothing to corroborate the prosecution version. It was further found that the complainant was in inimical terms with the accused inasmuch as the accused had filed certain cases against the said demolition drive. 5. The learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that in the absence of corroboration from the complainant, conviction could not be passed on the sole testimony of the complainant. The scope of interference in an order of acquittal is very limited. Unless the view - 3 - taken by the learned trial Court is either perverse or impossible, it is not possible to interfere with the same. As no perversity or impossibility noticed, the approach adopted by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. In this view of the matter, Revision Application is rejected. Sd/- [B. R. GAVAI, J.]