1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3318/2007 State of Maharashtra ...Versus... Vijay Madhukarrao Mathurkar and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for applicant] [Shri V.M. Deshpande, Adv. for respdt. No.1] [Shri A.S. Mardikar, Adv. for respdt. Nos.2 & 3] CORAM:- A.P. LAVANDE & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 02.04.2008 Heard Shri Doifode, learned A.P.P. for applicant, Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. By this application, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against judgment and order of acquittal, dated 19.6.2007, passed by the IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Session Trial No.158/2005, acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 According to the prosecution, the respondents committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegations are that on 17.4.2005 respondents/accused came in front of the house of P.W.3 Sindhubai and called deceased Pradip Mathurkar and, thereafter, assaulted him with axe. In support of the prosecution, the prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 Sindhubai, P.W.4 Nirmala and P.W.5 Ku. Shilpa. The Trial Court refused to rely upon their testimonies on the ground that they were full of contradictions and omissions and moreover they disclosed about the incident of assault for the first time on 4.5.2005 and, therefore, their evidence did not inspire confidence. Only other evidence which was led in support of the prosecution case was medical evidence which proved that death of deceased Pradip was homicidal. In so far as evidence of the above three witnesses is concerned, in our opinion, the Trial Court was justified in refusing to place reliance upon their testimonies, in view of the fact that there were material contradictions and omissions in their testimonies and moreover they disclosed about the incident for the first time on 4.5.2005. The report which Sindhubai claimed to have lodged on 19.4.2005 was also not produced 3 before the Trial Court. Therefore, in our opinion, the findings recorded by the Trial Court for acquitting the respondents for the offences for which they were charged cannot be said to be perverse, warranting interference in appeal against acquittal. We find no merit in the present application. The same is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE ssw