crapln1150.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1150 OF 2010. The State of Maharashtra. .. APPLICANT. VERSUS Sitaram Kondba Kute & ors. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for applicant/State. Shri Prashant Nagargoje, Advocate holding for Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for R.Nos.1,2 & 4. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 19th January, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Counsel for respondents. 2. This application is filed seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in Sessions Trial No.24/2009. crapln1150.10 2 3. The learned A.P.P. submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been discarded merely on the ground that the witnesses have stated in different tone as to when the alleged cruelty was caused by the accused and the alleged cruelty is also stated by the witnesses by mentioning different timing. Another reason given by the trial Court is that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. According to the learned A.P.P., barring these two reasons, there is no another reason assigned by the trial Court and by cryptic order, the trial Court has acquitted the respondents. He submits that this is a fit case wherein this Court may grant leave to appeal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the trial Court and also to the fact that the prosecution witnesses have stated the alleged cruelty with different crapln1150.10 3 version and on different timing. One witness says that the alleged cruelty was from Deepawali festival of 2008 and some say that it was after two years. He submitted that when the prosecution witnesses are not consistent in their statement about the alleged cruelty. He further submitted that no any independent witness has stated about the alleged cruelty and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. He submits that there is no prima facie evidence. The Counsel for the respondents also submitted that there are no specific allegations against each of the accused and, therefore, such general allegation / evidence has rightly been discarded by the trial Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Ganesh Y. Bhutekar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 1221. It is, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. crapln1150.10 4 5. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record. Except the statement of the witnesses, nothing has been appreciated by the trial Court. There is no reference to the fact that the incident in question has taken place in the field of the accused persons, how the said incident had taken place, what were circumstances under which the incident had taken place and why the victim consumed poison. The impugned judgment falls very short of sufficient reasons to acquit the respondents. 6. Since the prosecution witnesses have stated in their statements that there was alleged demand and admittedly, the death of deceased and incident of consuming poison was in the agricultural field of the respondents, crapln1150.10 5 I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Application is allowed. Leave to file appeal is granted. Registry is directed to register this application as Criminal Appeal. 8. Appeal admitted. Action u/s 390 of Cr.P.C. to follow against respondents No.3 and 4 only and their attendance once in six months till disposal of this appeal be ensured. So far as respondents No.1 and 2 are concerned, action u/s 390 of Cr.P.C. need not follow and they are exempted from such action. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*