..(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 APPLICATION NO.4504 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant. Versus Shankar Ganapti Rahatol and 14 Ors. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Applicant-State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 13th June, 2008. DATED : 13th June, 2008. DATED : 13th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th September, 2005 passed by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.140 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judged acquitted respondents-orig. accused Nos.1 to 15 of the offence under Sections 143, 147, 323 read with 149 and 325 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the ..(2).. evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant and witnesses and the accused belong to the rival political fractions. The case of the complainant is that on 29.8.1998 at about 9:00 p.m. all the 15 respondents-orig.accused came near his office and all the accused assaulted him. It is further the prosecution case that respondent No.13 Ananda fired a gunshot in the air. It is noticed that however in the complaint the complainant PW-1 Shivram, who is the injured witness, had only stated that respondent No.5 Shankar beat him with stick on his back and on his thigh. The medical evidence does not show any injury on the back or on thigh. In the complaint, the complainant has further stated that respondent No.15 beat him with stick. The complainant has not attributed any role to any of the other respondents-orig.accused. Thus, it is seen that in his evidence before the Court the complainant has made major improvements and he has implicated 12 of the respondents-orig.accused. 4. It is further the prosecution case that ..(3).. PW-2 Uday, PW-3 Pandurang and PW-4 Sharad are also eye witnesses to the incident. On perusal of the evidence of all these three witnesses, it is noticed that there are major improvements. It is seen that all the witnesses have improved their versions and also changed their case in relation to the place of the incident and the role by the accused persons and other details. The learned Sessions Judge has held that in view of the large number of omissions and contradictions, the witnesses cannot be believed and therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. As observed above, there are many omissions and contradictions which go to the root of the matter. So also, admittedly there is cross-case which has been filed by the accused. 5. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)