.{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.3920 OF 2007 [FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus 1. Sanjay Govind Mangela @ Sanjay & 2. Santosh Bhagwan Mangela. ..Respondents. .. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP, for the Applicant-State. Ms.Anjali Patil, Adv. for Respondent No.2. .. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : APRIL 01, 2008. DATED : APRIL 01, 2008. DATED : APRIL 01, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State and the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2-original accused No.2. None present for respondent No.1-original accused No.1 though served. 2. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th February, 2007 passed by the learned 10th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.163 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian .{2}. Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that respondent No.1 caught deceased Sahdev and respondent No.2 assaulted Sahdev with knife. On account of the assault, Sahdev expired. 4. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence produced by the learned APP in the present case. After taking into consideration all the material on record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 5. Firstly there is delay in lodging the FIR. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. PW-1 Pushpa Mangela and PW-8 Shyam Mangela claim to be the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-1 Pushpa Mangela is sister of the deceased and PW-8 Shyam Mangela is the brother of the deceased. PW-1 Pushpa Mangela has stated that respondent No.1 Sanjay caught hold of Sahdev and respondent No.2 assaulted Sahdev on leg with knife. However, evidence of this .{3}. witness, i.e. PW-1, is not corroborated by medical evidence. There is no injury on the leg of Sahdev. The post-mortem notes show that Sahdev had not one injury but two injuries and the said injuries were on the chest and on the shoulder. Moreover, evidence of PW-1 Pushpa also shows that the accused assaulted her brother i.e. PW-8 Shyam. However, Shyam himself does not state that anyone assaulted him. Moreover Shyam does not state that his sister PW-1 Pushpa was present at the spot. 6. As far as evidence of PW-8 Shyam is concerned, his evidence indicates that he was not present at the spot, but, infact he visited the site the next day. This is evident from para-2 of his cross-examination wherein he has stated that, "It is correct to say that on that day I have taken my sleep in the house of my friend and later on next date I visited the spot .." Assuming for the sake of argument that PW-8 Shyam was present at the spot and he had witnessed the incident, yet, though he was the brother of the deceased, he has not disclosed the incident to the police. PW-8 Shyam has deposed that the police station is adjacent to the Juhu garden and there is .{4}. patrolling on the said beach. Despite this fact, he has not informed the police about the said incident. Moreover, we have already observed that the evidence of this witness PW-8 Shyam indicates that he visited the scene of offence in the morning i.e. on the next day of the incident. 7. Even as far as the scene of offence is concerned, there is discrepancy. The evidence of PW-1 Pushpa as seen from para-9 of her evidence indicates that the incident has taken place near the temple. However, in para-3 of his evidence, PW-8 Shyam has stated that, "It is correct to say that, incident has taken place on the ground which is situated near the creek." This discrepancy regarding the scene of incident also raises grave doubt in the mind. 8. No motive has been established by the prosecution for the accused to commit the crime. No independent witness has been examined, though, the incident has taken place in a thickly populated area. Only two interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and the learned Sessions Judge has .{5}. observed that their evidence does not inspire confidence. 9. Looking to the evidence on record, we find that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 10. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, we are referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called .{6}. for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)