1apeal-633-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 633/2010 Nitin @ Narayan M. Chowdhari .. Appellant. (Original victim) versus Manoj Balkrishna Chavan and others .. Respondents. Mr M.S.Patankar i/by Ganesh M. Mohite, for the Appellant. Mrs A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM:- D.D. SINHA AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-accused. 2. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order L 2apeal-633-10 dated 25.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, whereby the respondent-accused came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 364A, 343, 324, 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the trial Court. It was the prosecution case that the accused persons abducted the victim Narayan (PW2) for ransom, wrongfully confined him for nine days and during that period caused hurt to him. 4. The prosecution evidence mainly consists of PW1 Pratibha (sister of victim) and PW2 Narayan, (the victim). It is the prosecution case that PW2 Narayan had business relation with the accused and there was some money transaction between them for the purpose of securing loan. PW2 Narayan was known to the accused and was also working for them as an agent in order to procure finance and to obtain loan from the bank. 5. The trial Court while scrutinizing the evidence of PW1 Pratibha as well as PW2 Narayan found that same does not inspire confidence, particularly, in view of the medical evidence regarding the age of L 3apeal-633-10 injuries sustained by the victim. The finding recorded by the trial Court, on the basis of the evidence available on record, in our view, cannot be said to be either perverse or unsustainable in law. 6. Considering limited jurisdiction, which this Court exercises in appeal against the acquittal, we are of the view that this is not the fit case to show indulgence. Hence, criminal appeal is dismissed. (D.D.SINHA,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J) L