1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.APPA 103 OF 2010. MANGARU S/O TUKARAM BHOYAR VS SOU. VIMAL MANOHAR WANKHEDE AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri P.M. Deshkar, Advocate for applicant. Shri V. A. Thakre, APP for respondent State. Coram : A.H. JOSHI, J. Date : 25th March, 2010. 1. Appeal is taken up for hearing without waiting of return of notices. 2. Heard learned Advocate Shri P. M. Deshkar for the applicant at length. 3. It is seen from the discussion contained in para 10 of the judgment that the complainant has examined three witnesses. 4. The learned Magistrate has found that in the complaint two more witnesses were named namely Parshuram Sahare and Bakaram. 5. It is now shown or otherwise indicated that examination of these witnesses was impossible, yet these witnesses are not examined who could have tried to support the case of the complainant which was not 2 supported by the witnesses no.2 & 3. 6. Learned Magistrate has found that the testimonies of these witnesses are not coherent. 7. The learned Magistrate has then observed that in the type of evidence that was before the Court and considering the probable defence which was disclosed from the cross examination and the documents relied upon by the accused persons though not strictly proved, it would be unsafe to accept the version of the prosecution. 8. The findings recorded by the learned Magistrate are supported by probabilities and cannot be criticized to be perverse. 9. View taken by the learned Magistrate is most probable view and no interference is warranted. 10. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Judge |mule|