Cri.Application No.5064/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5064 OF 2010 State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Versus Balaji Kacharu Telang and ors. ..Respondents Mr K.G.Patil, A.P.P. for applicant-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 27th January 2011 PER COURT 1. This application has been filed by the applicant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, dated 31.8.2010, acquitting respondents 1 to 4 of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence worth the name in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial Court extensively referred to the evidence of P.W.4 Dr.Vijaykumar Sul. In cross-examination he had admitted that after conducting the post mortem examination, he was not sure about the cause of death. It further appeared in the cross- examination that he had initially opined at Exh.39 that death was not possible due to injuries 1 to 3, allegedly sustained by deceased Prerna. Later on he was re-examined by the prosecution and he has admitted that the opinion expressed by him at Exh.39 was an erroneous opinion. The trial Court found that in such situation it was difficult to place implicit Cri.Application No.5064/2010 2 reliance upon the evidence of P.W.4 Dr.Vijaykumar Sul that deceased Prerna had been throttled to death on 2.12.2008. The trial Court, therefore, extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them. 3. We have heard Mr K.G.Patil, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the applicant and we have also perused the record and proceedings. Upon such perusal, according to us the benefit of doubt extended to the respondents does not appear to be misplaced. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to justify any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 4. Accordingly, there being no merit in the application, application is dismissed. Leave refused. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/5064.10criappln)