drp {1} Cri. Application No.4186/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4186 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Sangeeta Dinesh Jadhawar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for applicant State Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14th February 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. This is an application filed by the applicant-State u/s 378 (1) (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 30.04.2010 rendered by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 71/2009 acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence punishable u/s 395, 353, 427, 504, 506 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. An offence at Crime No.70/2008 was registered at Ambajogai Police station on the basis of complaint lodged by drp {2} Cri. Application No.4186/2010 Mohan Gangane. It was alleged in the complaint that on 28.03.2008, at about 4.05 p.m. respondent No.1, along with others, attacked the complainant and forcibly removed golden chain and cash of Rs.9000/- from the complainant. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed and thereafter case was committed to the Court of Sessions. During the trial, the prosecution had examined in all 9 witnesses. The defence of respondent No.1 was that while she was returning on her scooty, the complainant had intercepted her and had misbehaved her and hence she had lodged a complaint in the police station and to give counter blast to the said complaint the present complaint has been filed. The defence of other accused is that they are falsely implicated in the offence. During the trial, only the complainant and PW-3 had supported the prosecution case while others did not support the prosecution case. The trial court discarded the evidence of PW-3 on the ground that at the relevant time he was attending the training and hence was not present at the spot, which is at the distance of 20 km. The trial court has also observed that there is variance in the evidence of PW-3 and the complainant with respect to the place of incident. The trial court discarded evidence of PW-1, complainant on the ground that there is no recovery of golden locket and the cash allegedly looted by the accused. The complainant has stated that he was assaulted with iron rod and stone, however on perusal of the spot Panchanama there is no reference of iron rod or stone at the place of offence nor were there signs of violence and hence the trial court disbelieved drp {3} Cri. Application No.4186/2010 his evidence. The trial court also disbelieved his evidence on the ground that though the police station was at the distance of 5 minutes walking from the place of offence, yet the offence was lodged belatedly and though he was admitted in the hospital immediately after the incident, his shirt was recovered after some days. The trial court has also found that the mobile, allegedly damaged in the incident, is also not recovered from any of the accused. Considering all these aspects the trial court discarded the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused. 3. With the assistance of learned APP we have perused the impugned judgment. We have also perused the Record and Proceedings. Upon such perusal we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is a probable view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning recorded by the trial court while acquitting the respondents. In the premise, we do not think it necessary to interfere in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the application fails and is dismissed accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/criapln4186-10 drp {4} Cri. Application No.4186/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.325 OF 2010 Mohan Devidas Gangane APPLICANT VERSUS Sangeeta Dinesh Jadhawar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for applicant Mr.D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State Mr.S.S.Thombre, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 14th February 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. In view of the fact that we have refused leave to the State for filing appeal against the acquittal of the respondents- accused, the present appeal does not survive and hence disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/criapln4186-10