1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 144/2006 Shiv Appa Dhonda Appa Patangray ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17 th June, 2008 Criminal Application No. 1892/2006 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr. Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Yengal, A.P.P. for non applicant No. 1 and Mr. Kasat, Advocate for non applicant Nos. 2 to 4. 2. The application is taken out for condonation of delay of 134 days occurred in filing the aforesaid revision application. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Criminal Revision Application No. 144/2006 1. Non applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 307, 324 r/w Section 2 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati convicted non applicant No. 2/accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under Section 452; 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer R. I. For 2 months. Non applicant Nos. 3 and 4-original accused Nos. 2 and 3 however were acquitted of the offence for which they were prosecuted. 2. The present revision is filed by the original complainant-victim of the offence challenging acquittal of non applicant Nos. 3 and 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence held that the prosecution successfully proved the fact of assault by non applicant No. 2 Ramdas upon the complainant by means of sword by entering into the house and participation of the other accused is not proved beyond doubts. The trial Court also held that the prosecution could not prove the intention of non applicant No. 2 to commit murder of the complainant 3 inasmuch as the amputation was done after 12 days. The trial court considered the testimony of the Medical Officer who admitted that the complainant sustained simple lacerated injury and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is no direct relation between the amputation and the injury caused by the accused. 3. I have also gone through the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal of non applicant Nos. 3 and 4. The reasons are not perverse. Each of the reason is based on the proper appreciation of the evidence. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view. Be that as it may, the learned A.P.P. also makes statement that the State does not want to file appeal against acquittal. 4. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere in the order impugned. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale