1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 548 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. V/s Dilip @ Dinu Anant Desai & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP for Applicant-State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, District-Thane in Sessions Case No.160 of 2007 dated 16th November, 2009, whereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 232 of Cr.P.C. Of the charge u/s 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under S. 147, 148,452, 354, 427 r/w 149 of I.P.C. And also under Section 354, 427, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. And under S. 135 of Bombay Police Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident about 200 to 2 300 persons assembled in the office of Bhumisena and Adivasi Ekta Parished. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused persons misbehaved with PW Meena and assaulted her. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the Accused were charged with for the offence as stated hereinabove and the conclusion of the Trial Court is that the accused was acquitted for the offence. Thereby aggrieved, present appeal. 3. Learned APP has submitted that the Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused. The Trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Prosecution has examined Meena, Ankush, Aruna and Pramila as eye- witnesses of the incident. From the testimony of these witnesses, the learned Trial Court has found that though the main accused Dilip was present in the Court, it was stated by these witnesses that the accused was not present in the Court. It was therefore found that the witnesses had failed to identify the accused. It is found that the evidence of the witnesses was not such, on the basis of which conviction could be passed. It was further found that the medical evidence also does not corroborate the case of the prosecution. Insofar as seizure of weapon is concerned, the weapons, which were seized 3 were bamboo sticks. It was not the case of the prosecution that the said sticks were used in assault. 5. Scope of interference in appeal against the accused is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Trial Court is either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. No perversity or impossibility is noticed so as to warrant interference. Hence dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI,J)