1 APPLN 412 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.412 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. -versus Pundalik Rajaram Bhosale and ors .. Respondents. Mr. P. P. Bhosale, APP for the State. Mr. V. V. Palnitkar, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 16th November, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, 1989, rendered by Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right in submitting that the learned Judge seems to have erroneously read the evidence of Investigating Officer and had wrongly observed in para 15 of the judgment that the Investigating Officer had fairly conceded in his cross examination that there was no evidence against accused. Firstly, there is no such statement made by the Investigating Officer in the evidence. Secondly the Investigating Officer had 2 APPLN 412 OF 2011 no business to so state. Learned APP is also right in submitting that reference to officer authorized to investigate the matter in para 15 of the judgment is also uncalled for, since the offence was investigated by Assistant Commissioner of Police. However, the judge has mercifully not drawn any conclusions about incompetence of the Investigating Officer. All the same as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the incident occurred on 14th April, 2004 and though a report about incident was given soon thereafter, the record of the N. C. case made by the police does not show any caste based abuses were uttered. The report given on 15th April, 2005, i.e more than one year and three months after the incident, however, recounts that reference to the first informant’s caste was made. Only witnesses who states this are the first informant and his family members. Considering this, if the learned Judge, upon appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusions that witnesses were not liable to be believed, it would not possible to entertain the appeal simply because another view of the matter was also possible. Therefore, since the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse or untenable. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)