1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2008 Ramrao s/o Satwa Hudekar. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. ... Respondents. -------- Smt.S.G. Chincholkar,Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.S.D. Kaldate, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1. Shri. S.N. Lovekar, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL, J. DATE: 29th AUGUST 2009 ORAL ORDER: 1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2) In Regular Criminal Case No.27 of 1998 respondents Nos.2 and 3 were tried along with other two accused for offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 506(II) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment and 2 order dated 10-4-2002 the Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class Hadgaon convicted the respondents Nos.2 and 3 for an offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.500/- each. Rest of the accused were acquitted of the offences for which they were charged. 3) Respondents Nos.2 and 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2002 against the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the Judicial Magistrate. By judgment and order dated 20-9-2008 the Additional Sessions Judge Nanded set aside the order of conviction and sentence and acquitted respondents Nos.2 and 3. The complainant has filed this criminal revision application against the acquittal of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Lower Appellate Court disbelieved PW-3 Manik as an eye witness. His evidence did not inspire confidence. There was improvement in the evidence of eye witness and 3 material omissions and contradictions are brought on record. The Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution, and therefore, the omissions and contradictions could not be proved. Against PW 1 Ramrao and others a crime was also registered and the present petitioner, who is complainant, filed a complaint against the respondents. In the light of the relations between the parties and the civil disputes, the Lower Appellate Court has carefully examined the evidence of PW 1 – Ramrao, PW 3 Manik and PW 5 Annapurnabai. 4) Considering the scope and ambit of the revision petition filed in this Court, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5) The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crra.251.08