1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (State of Maharashtra vs. Parmeshwar @ Pramod Govind Damdar) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mrs. B.P. Maldhure, Advocate for the applicant. ….. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. MARCH 17, 2011. Heard Mrs. Maldhure, learned APP for the applicant – State of Maharashtra. The applicant/ appellant – State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent – original accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the accused and deceased Vilas were residing in the same village. At about 11.00 to 11.30 P.M., Vilas came to the house of his mother Tulsabai. He threw his shirt and started running. Tulsabai ran behind him and she saw the 2 accused assaulting the deceased on his head and neck with stick. Vilas died on account of said assault. Hence, First Information Report came to be lodged by Tulsabai. We have heard Mrs. Maldhure, learned APP for the applicant – State of Maharashtra. We have perused the evidence produced by the learned APP as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion that for the reasons mentioned herein below, the application for leave to file appeal deserves to be dismissed. There is one eye witness P.W.1 – Tulsabai. Tulsabai stated that Vilas came to her house and threw his shirt and started running. She ran behind him and she saw the accused assaulting the deceased on his head and neck with stick. Vilas died on account of said assault. Hence, First Information Report came to be lodged by her. However, it is noticed that Tulsabai in her cross examination has admitted that before she give her deposition, she was informed as to what was to be deposed. This clearly shows that she was a tutored witness. This aspect along with other aspects including delay in lodging FIR have been taken into consideration by the trial Court while acquitting the accused. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. We may make useful reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in 3 the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dinesh, reported in (2009) 3 Scale 345, wherein in a case of appeal against acquittal, it was held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The Supreme Court in C. Anthony vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that when two views are possible and when the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable and possible view, the High Court cannot in an appeal substitute its findings merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record. It is further observed that if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court. We have already observed that the view taken by the trial Court is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no case is made out for interference. In the circumstances, application for leave to file appeal is rejected. Consequently, Criminal Appeal is also dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.