1 Criminal Application No.2278 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2278 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Ramesh S/o.Vitthal Jadhavar and others RESPONDENTS Mr.S.K.Tambe, learned counsel for the applicant. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 03/08/2011 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant/State seeks leave to file appeal for challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dated 25/02/2011 in Sessions Case No.50/2006, acquitting the respondents/accused for an offence punishable u/s. 147, 148, 341 r/w. 109, u/s. 324 r/w. 109, 302 r/w. 109 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution principally relied upon the evidence of P.W.No. 1 Watsalabai, mother of deceased Tatya and the first informant. P.W.No.1 Watsalabai in her evidence implicates all the accused. The Trial Court found that no reliance could be placed on the testimony of P.W.No.1 Watsalabai in the light of evidence of P.W.No.5 Shivaji and P.W.No.6 Nandu, who state that when they had gone to the scene of 2 Criminal Application No.2278 of 2011 the offence, they had only seen deceased Tatya lying on the ground and had gone to the house of Tatya and had informed Watsalabai who was at that time present in the house. The Trial Court further found that Shankar who was said to be accompanying the deceased Tatya, had not been examined. 3. Deceased had sustained following injuries - 1. Abrasion on wrist 2 x 1 cm. right hand on shoulder right 3 x 1 cm and 2 x 1 cm. 2. Abrasion on elbow 1 x 1 cm. left hand. 3. Abrasion on right knee 1 x 1 cm. right leg and on right thigh 3 x 2 cm. on back 4 x 6 cm, and 3.2 cm. 4. Blunt injury on chest 1 x 1 cm. The Medical Officer has further opined that deceased had died on account of vasogenic shock and according to him, strenuous cycling may lead to vasogenic shock. He also admitted that the injuries sustained were possible by fall from bi-cycle. In that light of the matter therefore, the Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents accused and acquitted them. 4. We have heard the learned A.P.P. in support of the application and we have also examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court by examining the record and proceeding. Upon such examination, according to us, the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record and we do not notice 3 Criminal Application No.2278 of 2011 any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this application. 5. Consequently, this application, being sans merits, is dismissed confirming the acquittal of the respondents. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUG. 2011/cri.appl.2278-11