1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 197/2007 Subhash Pundlik Hiwale ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and 2 ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 27 th June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant No. 1. 2. Non applicant Nos. 2 and 3 came to be tried on the basis of First Information Report lodged by the applicant under Section 294, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (v) (x) (xv) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned 2nd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Buldhana convicted non applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a day and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under sections 294 and 504 read 2 with 34 of the I.P.C. Non applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were also convicted for the offences punishable under sections 506 r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (v) (x) (xv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of RS. 500/- in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months on each count. 3. Non applicant Nos. 2 and 3 filed Appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 90/2004 before the Sessions Court, Buldhana, which appeal came to be disposed of by order dated 04.05.2007. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal of the non applicants and they are acquitted of all the offences. This order of acquittal is under challenge in the present revision application. The prosecution examined in all five witnesses. The learned Principal Sessions Judge considered the evidence of these five witnesses and found that these witnesses do not inspire confidence as their versions are contradictory to each others. The learned 3 Sessions Judge was also influenced by the fact that there is delay of 14 days in filing the First Information Report. 4. With the help of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the reasons given by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. The reasons cannot be said to be perverse. Each of the reason is substantiated by appreciation of the evidence on record. The view taken by learned Principal Sessions Judge is a possible view and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of any substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale