IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.34 OF 2000 Dattaprasad Sitaram Koli, res. of Mora- Koliwada, Uran, Tal: Panvel, District Raigad ..Applicant (Org. Complainant) versus 1. Saiprasad Sitaram Koli, res. of Mora-Koliwada, Uran, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad 2. State of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mrs.Teja Katdare for the Applicant None for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Saste for the State CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. DATED : 22nd April, 2008. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Uran, by Order dated 26th October, 1999 acquitted the respondent No.1 as regards charge under Section 324 and 504 of I.P.C. in Regular Criminal Case No.103 of 1995. The present applicant had filed the FIR and has set criminal law in motion. That is how being aggrieved by the Order of acquittal, he has chosen to file this revision application. -2- 2. Learned Advocate Mrs. Katdare admitted before this Court that no appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Maharashtra. 3. The applicant/complainant filed complaint with the concerned police station with regard to the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 24.5.1995 late at midnight and according to the complainant the respondent No.1 assaulted him with Warwanta (stone) and caused injury. The complainant went to the Uran Police Station and lodged FIR on the basis of which crime was registered vide C.R.No.94 of 2005. After investigation chargesheet was filed and the respondent No.1 faced criminal Case No.103 of 1995 wherein he was acquitted as per the impugned Order. 4. At the trial the complainant was examined as FIR complainant. P.W.2 Pandurang Koli was the panch regarding spot panchanama. P.W.3 Nanda, sister of the Complainant P.W.1. was examined. Punju Patil the Officer on duty was examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5 Dr.Ganesh Narankar was examined with regard to the injuries suffered by the said -3- victim complainant. 5. This being the revision challenging the Order of acquittal, question of conversion of the Order of acquittal into conviction does not arise and as such the only point which is required to be considered is whether the impugned judgment dated 26th October, 1999 deserves to be set aside and the learned JMFC Uran (hereinafter referred to as the learned Judge) should be directed to go in re-trail or re-appreciation of the evidence. 6. It is required to be mentioned that though Nanda, P.W.3 has been examined, she is not the eye witness to the alleged incident and therefore her evidence is of no avail to the petitioner. Witness No.2 Pandurang, being the panch regarding spot panchanama, nothing turned out of his evidence. The Medical officer, P.W.5 Dr.Ganesh has no doubt led evidence with reference to the injuries which are said to have been suffered by the complainant. His evidence is for the purpose of corroborating the nature of the injuries suffered by the complainant. -4- 7. The only witness who was relevant for the purpose of deciding the guilt of the accused was P.W.1 i.e. the complainant. 8. I have heard learned Advocate Mrs. Katdare and Mr. Saste and I have perused the evidence of P.W.1. It is seen that according to the complainant, the incident took place after the father of the petitioner along with his brothers went to the police station. The complainant was all alone at the site and the respondent No.1 is said to have assaulted the petitioner with warvanta. The learned trial judge has refused to accept the testimony of the complainant as trustworthy on the basis of the cross examination of the petitioner. In the cross examination omissions and contradictions have been brought on record by the learned cross examiner and that is how the learned trial judge has looked to the evidence. The learned trial judge has in paragraph 6 onwards given details as to how he came to the conclusion that the evidence of the petitioner can not be accepted. The view taken by the learned trial Judge as regards the appreciation of evidence cannot be considered as unusual in view that in the -5- facts and circumstances of the case, the view of the learned trial Judge will have to be termed as probable. The learned trial judge has given emphasis on the omissions and contradictions which have been brought on record in the cross examination of the evidence of the complainant P.W.No.1 and that is how the learned trial judge has observed that the evidence of the complainant is required to be disbelieved. Another important factor which went in the mind of the learned trial Judge is strained relation between the complainant and the respondent No.1. The fact that the relation between the complainant and respondent were strained is not seriously disputed. On consideration of the entire record before the Court, I am inclined to observe that the view taken by the learned trial judge on the basis of the material placed before me was probable and the learned trial judge has given in a way benefit of doubt to the respondent No.1 and has chosen to acquit the respondent No.1. In my view, there is no need to exercise revisional jurisdiction of this Court as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and remand the matter to the learned trial judge for the purpose of re-appreciation of -6- the evidence. 9. Since it was not the grievance of the applicant before this Court that any particular witness has not been examined, there is no question of examination of any more witnesses on behalf of the complainant and as such on that count also the case is not required to be remanded. In the substance, no interference is required by this Court and the revision application is required to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . Revision Application is dismissed. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)