1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Application (APPA) No. 203/2009 ( State of Mah. .vs. Suresh @ Suryakanat Sadashio Chapade and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for Applicant. Mr. M.B. Naidu, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2010. Heard. By the present application, applicant/State has prayed for a leave under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for preferring an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.7.2007 passed by learned Adhoc ASJ, Wardha in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2007 acquitting the respondents no.1 to 3 from commission of offence punishable under Section 341, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is the prosecution case that in the year 2006 one Suryakant Chapade was assaulted by Raju Lidbe, Ganesh Lidbe and others by means of Gupti and on that count they were facing session trial at Wardha. On 17.2.2007 at about 12 noon Raju Lidbe came to attend Sessions Court at Wardha while Ganesh Lidbe was intending to come lateron. However, Raju Lidbe received information from his Advocate Shri Khare that his brother 2 Ganesh has been murdered. Advocate Shri Khare had received the intimation about the murder from one Vinod Shinde. Raju Lidbe left his village in auto-rickshaw. On the way near quarters of Antargaon at the side of canal, he saw the crowd and found dead body of his brother Ganesh lying in bushes with injuries over his head and abdomen. Upon Raju making inquiry with Vinod Shinde, it was revealed that on account of earlier enmity, respondents no.1 to 3 had got down Ganesh from auto- rickshaw and had assaulted him by means of sharp edged stones and committed his murder. Thereon Raju Lidbe had lodged the report with the Police Station upon which the offence was registered at Crime No. 32 of 2007 and after investigation the respondents no.1 to 3 were charge sheeted by Seloo Police Station. Though perusal of the record supports submission of learned APP that out of two set of witnesses whose evidence was adduced at a trial, the witnesses travelling along with the deceased in a rickshaw had not supported the prosecution, some of the witnesses nearby the spot had given the evidence supporting the prosecution case, still further submission canvassed by him that the said evidence was not accepted by the trial Court only on the count of their statements being recorded belatedly does not appear to be correct. On the contrary the reasoning given in paragraph no. 28 to 40 regarding the said evidence clearly reveals that amongst other the trial Court had come to the conclusion of earlier version of the said witnesses was suppressed by the prosecution. The said reasoning clearly reveals that while 3 coming to such conclusion, trial Court has taken into consideration the contradictory version regarding such aspects stated by the said witnesses and so also the answers given by the investigating officer regarding relevant aspect. The perusal of the record reveals that the evidence of the said witnesses has not been rejected on any fanciful reasons or only on the count of their statements being recorded after much a delay but the same has been rejected after considering the said aspect along with all other relevant aspect. Hence view taken by the trial Court can not be said to be perverse or being not warranted from the material on the record. On the contrary the reasoning clearly reveals such a view was not only possible but was warranted in totality of the circumstances surfaced on the record. Hence no fault can be found with the findings arrived by the trial Court. Hence we find no merit in the application and hence the same is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai