1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No.167/2007 Kalpak Digambar Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- CORAM : A.P.Lavande,J DATE : 21.2.2008 Heard Mr. Singhane, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Joshi, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1. 2. By this Revision Application the applicant who is son of deceased Digambar Deshmukh assail the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 31st May, 2007 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Session Trial No. 120/1997. 3. The respondents 2 to 9 herein were 2` prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,302, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the respondents had formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object had committed murder of Digambar Deshmukh the father of the applicant on 25.5.1996. The prosecution also alleged that the respondents also attempted to commit the murder of P.W. 1 Shankar. 4. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents accused 2 to 9 herein. During the trial out of six eye witnesses examined by the prosecution five turned hostile and only P.W. 10 Gopal Deshmukh supported the prosecution. P.W. 1 Shankar who was injured in the incident did not support the prosecution case in toto. The trial 3` Court held that it was unsafe to convict the accused on the testimony of P.W. 10 Gopal since there were several contradictions and omissions in his testimony. Moreover, the trial Court observed that there was inter se variation between P.W. 1 Shankar Deshmukh and P.W. 10 Gopal. The trial Court held that although the homicidal death of deceased Digambar was proved the prosecution had not been able to prove the offences for which the respondents 2 to 9 were charged. 5. Mr.Singhane, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the approach of the trial Court is contrary to the settled proposition governing appreciation of the evidence in criminal trials. The reasons given by the trial court for not placing reliance upon the testimony of P.W. 1 Shankar and P.W,.10 Gopal are unsustainable in law. He further submitted that merely because there are minor variations in the testimony of the 4` prosecution witnesses, the same by itself cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case in toto. In support of his submissions Mr.Singhane relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs.Dan Singh and others (AIr 1997 Supreme Court, 1654. 6. Per contra, Mrs. Joshi, learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent no.1 submitted that the State has not preferred appeal against and that the findings given by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in appeal against acquittal. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the impugned Judgment and order I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The trial court was right in 5` not placing implicit reliance upon the testimony of the sole eye witness P.W. 10 Gopal and not placing reliance on the testimony of P.W. 1 Shankar in view of the fact that there is no inter se corroboration between the testimonies of these two witnesses. It is well settled that interference by the High Court in revision against acquittal is very limited and unless gross procedural illegality or perversity is pointed out in the impugned order this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with an order of acquittal passed by the trial court. Having regard to the test laid down by the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference by this court in a revision against acquittal I am satisfied that no case has been made out by the applicants for interference against the impugned Judgment and order. The revision is, therefore, rejected. Judge 6` patle