( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.191 OF 2000 Ramesh Balaram Mhatre .. Applicant. Versus Naresh Dattatraya Mhatre & 18 Ors. .. Respondents. None for the applicant. None for respondent Nos.1 to 18. Ms. Alpa Jhaveri, A.P.P. for respondent No.19-State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. DATED : 3rd June, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- ORAL JUDGEMENT :- 1. None for the applicant. Ms.Jhaveri for respondent No.19 -State. None for respondent Nos.1 to 18. 2. Respondents 1 to 18 faced trial being Sessions Case No.188 of 1997 in the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. They were tried for Sections 307 r/w. Sections 34, 147, 148, 149 r/w. Sections 323, 453, 440 and 543 r/w. Sections 34, 323 r/w. Sections 34, 440 r/w. Sections 34 and 395 r/w. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge conducted the trial and by his judgement and order dated 17.2.2000 acquitted the respondents 1 to 18 in regard to the charges for which they had to face the trial. Being aggrieved by the said judgement and order dated 17.2.2000, the first informant Ramesh Mhatre-applicant herein has filed this criminal ( 2 ) revision. 3. The incident in question is said to have taken place on 14.6.1996 at about 4.00 p.m. in the quarry near Dapoda village, Taluka Bhiwandi and according to the prosecution the respondents 1 to 18 formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted Raju Mhatre P.W.2 and caused serious injuries to him. In the course of trial, as many as 8 witnesses came to be examined and Ramesh Mhatre was the complainant P.W.1, Raju Mhatre P.W.2, who was injured and Praveen Mhatre P.W.3 was the eye witness and the son of the complainant. Rests of the witnesses were in the nature of Panchas and medical officer and the investigating officer. 4. In the absence of the learned Advocate for the applicant, I have perused the record with the assistance of learned A.P.P. Ms.Jhaveri appearing on behalf of the State. The learned Trial Judge has taken a stock of the entire evidence and has disbelieved the case by giving detailed reasons in the impugned judgement commencing from paragraph No.17. 5. It is seen that the witnesses have deposed that at the time when the incident took place, certain persons were carrying out agricultural operations in the adjoining lands and the statements of those ( 3 ) persons have not been recorded and those persons have not come forward and statements of those persons have not been recorded. According to the prosecution, the truck driver Vilas intervened in the matter but his statement also has not been recorded and he has not been examined before the Court. The learned Trial Judge has observed that the medical evidence is not in conformity with the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge considered the various points and has finally come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and to that extent, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the respondents 1 to 18. 6. I have perused the grounds challenging the impugned order. This is being a revision against the order of acquittal, it is well settled that the Court should be slow in interfering the re-appreciating evidence recorded by the learned Trial Judge and the final order acquitting the concerned persons. After having considered the grounds, I am inclined to observe that the applicant wants to show that the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence in the manner in which the applicant wanted it. After having seen the impugned judgement, I am inclined to observe that no such observation can be made so as to ( 4 ) say that the learned Trial Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence in the proper perspective. It is seen that the investigating agency has not recorded the statement of Mr.Vijay and that according to the applicant has resulted in not presenting the case before the Court in a proper manner. May it be so but now that the persons have been acquitted, it would not be proper to direct the investigating agency to record the statements and remand the matter to the Court for conducting a fresh trial. 7. In my view, the learned Trial Judge has passed a well reasoned order and no interference is necessary in the impugned order. The revision is liable to be dismissed. Hence the order :- a) Revision is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)