1 appln5139.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5139 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra : Applicant (Orig.Complainant) V/s. Dilip Vishnu Puri & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Accused nos.1 to 6) .... Mr.H.J.Dedhia, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 02, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Application is preferred against the order of acquittal dated 28.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, whereby the respondents-accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 147, 452 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has examined total five eye-witnesses who have witnessed the incident in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, out of them, three did not support the prosecution in 2 appln5139.10 the Court and, therefore, permission to declare them hostile was sought. It is contended that so far as the evidence of P.W.1 Kalpana Deshmukh, the mother of the deceased Prashant and P.W. 2 Pratibha Deshmukh, the sister of the deceased, is concerned, it is consistent, trustworthy and free from material contradictions and omissions. It is submitted that both the eye-witnesses consistently stated in their testimonies that the respondents came to the house of the complainant and assaulted deceased Prashant with kicks and fist blows. Deceased Prashant was dragged by them from the house to veranda and was also assaulted there. Prashant was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the substantive evidence of these two eye-witnesses in the right perspective and, therefore, the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unsustainable in law. 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and perused the judgement impugned in this appeal. In the instant case, though P.W.1 Kalpana and P.W.2 Pratibha have mentioned about the assault alleged to have been committed by the respondents on deceased Prashant, the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution unfolded by these witnesses. Similarly, there 3 appln5139.10 are omissions in the evidence of these witnesses pertaining to the nature of the assault committed by the respondents and the kind of injury sustained by the deceased. The medical evidence shows that the cause of death was due to choking of food particles in the lung track. The post- mortem report does not show any internal or external injury except the choking of lungs which could be because of the food particles. 4. In these circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court, in our opinion, is a reasonable view which needs no interference. Hence, leave refused. Criminal Application is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)