1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2573 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra, (through PSO, Kopargaon P.S. Dist. Ahmednagar). Applicant Versus 1. Alam Usman Shaikh, Age: 25 years, Occ: Business, 2. Mushtak Usman Shaikh, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, 3. Ismail Haji Usman Gani Shaikh, Age: 38 years, Occ: Business, 4. Juber Nurmahammad Shaikh, Age: 25 years, Occ: Business, 5. Hasinabi Dadabhai Shaikh, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, 6. Shahin Ismail Shaikh, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, 7. Julekha Ismail Shaikh, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, No.1 & 7 R/o. Khatik Galli, Kopargaon, Nos. 2 to 6 R/o. Subhashnagar, Kopargaon Tq. Dist.Ahmednagar. Respondents ... Mr. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for applicant. Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondents. ... 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATE : 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : . State being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon dated 03-04-2007 rendered in Sessions Case No.27/2003 acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 307 read with Sections 149, 147, 148, 326, read with Sections 149, 323 read with Section 149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed the present application seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. 2. The prosecution went to trial relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 Shaikh Salim who was the injured witness as well as the first informant. The prosecution has also examined P.W.9 Yunus who was stated to be an injured witness. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 Nisar as an eye witness, P.W.3 Afsarkhan as an 3 eye witness and P.W.4 Rizwan as an eye witness. The trial Court found that in the light of exaggerations made by the witnesses in respect of nature of weapon i.e. sword no reliance could be placed on them. The relevant discussion is to be found at Para. 33 of the judgment. The trial Court found that the evidence of eye witnesses therefore was not corroborated by the medical evidence and there was direct conflict between the ocular testimony and medical testimony. The trial Court further found that in the light of aforesaid conflict in the medical and ocular evidence, no reliance at all could be placed on the testimonies of eye witnesses. 3. We have heard Mr. K.G. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the applicant and Mr. S.P. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents, with whose assistance we have perused the Record and Proceedings which was called for by this Court. Upon such perusal we do not notice any perversity in the reasonings 4 of the trial Court to justify admission of the present appeal. The view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In the light of that fact this application is sans merits and it is summarily dismissed. Leave refused. Application is dismissed. [ A.V.NIRGUDE, J.] [ P.V. HARDAS, J.] sut/NOV09/crapn2573.07