1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1062 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.227 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra, Petitioner Versus Ananda s/o Sheshrao Bhagangare & 9 others Respondents Mr.Dilip Bankar Patil, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 17th June, 2009. P.C.: This is an application presented by the State for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kandhar, on 24.12.2008 in Special (Atrocities) Case No.23/2003. The accused were charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. Admittedly, there was enmity between the two groups on account of local elections. The case put up by the prosecution in respect of extending beating to Hari Shinde, Nagarbai Shinde and Chandrabai Shinde does not appear to have been substantiated by the prosecution. 2 Learned Trial Judge found that the ocular evidence of complainant Vithal Shinde, his wife Vimalbai, his brother Hari and P.W.9 – Pandurang Shinde is not natural, consisting and corroborating to each other and worthy of placing reliance. It has also been observed by the trial Court that the ocular evidence is not consistent with the medical evidence placed on record. The Medical Officer has categorically deposed that on examination of Hari Shinde, Nagaribai Shinde and Chandrabai Shinde, he found only tenderness and he did not find external injuries on their persons. He has further deposed that only Pandit had an abrasion. The ocular evidence of injured witnesses was found to be highly exaggerated and same is not consistent with the medical evidence. In view of these discrepancies, the prosecution version does not inspire confidence. The view adopted by the learned Trial Judge appears to be reasonable and based on appreciation of evidence. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not a ground for causing interference in the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge. There is no merit in the application. The application seeking leave to file appeal stands rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criappln106209