1 A-4303-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4303 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant /Orig. Complainant versus Maruti Mahadeo Saswade & Ors. ..Respondents/Orig. Accused Mrs. A. S. Pai - Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant / State. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 04, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant / State. 2. The Criminal Application for leave to file appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 10th June 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby the respondents were acquitted for the offences charged. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has 2 A-4303-10 submitted that in the instant case the prosecution has examined number of witnesses, however, the important witnesses are P.W. 2 Ranganath (complainant), P.W. 3 Jalindar (victim of assault), P.W. 4 Ganesh (eye witness) and P.W. 7 Mangesh (eye witness) coupled with the medical evidence. It is contended that the prosecution evidence clearly demonstrates that the original accused nos. 1 and 2 at the relevant time were armed with sickle and sword and inflicted injuries by the said weapons on the person of P.W. 3 Jalindar and P.W. 2 Ranganath. It is contended that the medical evidence demonstrates that both these witnesses suffered injuries and therefore their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, however, the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the right perspective which has resulted in acquittal of the respondents hence the judgment is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. In the instant case it is not in dispute that both the witnesses i.e. P.W. 2 Ranganath and P.W. 3 Jalindar in their evidence has specifically stated that original accused nos. 1 and 2 at the relevant time were armed with the sickle and sword and the injuries were inflicted by them with the said weapons on the person of these witnesses. The medical 3 A-4303-10 evidence clearly shows that there was no incise or stab wound noticed on the person of these witnesses. The medical officer has also ruled out possibility of causing injuries as sustained by these witnesses by means of sickle or sword. So far as the evidence against original accused nos. 3 to 9 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the prosecution witnesses including P.W. 2 Ranganath and P.W. 3 Jalindar saw the original accused nos. 3 to 9 first time at the time of assault, second time in the police station and third time in the Court. The prosecution has not conducted any identification parade and in absence thereof the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complicity of original accused nos. 3 to 9 could not be established by the prosecution. 4. Taking into consideration the overall view of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are of the view that the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court are just and proper, needs no interference. Leave refused. Criminal Application and Criminal Appeal, both, are dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)