*1* 18appln26o20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 26 OF 2020 KARUNA SIDDHESHWAR URGUNDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Shri Adgaonkar Ravibhushan P., Advocate for the Applicant. Shri M.A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/ State. ... CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 17 August 2026 P. C. :- 1. By this revision application, the applicant/ informant challenges the judgment and order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Appeal No.23/2017 by which, the appeal filed by the applicant/ informant came to be dismissed. The said appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2015 passed by the learned JMFC, Latur, in STCC No.2148/2015 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitting them for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 427 and 506 read with 2026:BHC-AUG:37208 *2* 18appln26o20 Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that both the Courts below have committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned orders of acquittal are perverse and are passed without appreciating evidence in proper perspective. The revision is required to be allowed and the accused are liable to be convicted. 3. Learned APP submits that appropriate order may be passed in the light of evidence on record. 4. With the help of learned advocate for the applicant and the learned APP, I have perused the impugned orders. The learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the appeal, was pleased to observe that evidence recorded by the Trial Court has been properly appreciated and no error was found in the order passed by the Trial Court. It is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The witnesses and particularly husband and wife have stated different versions about the incident. As the learned Sessions Judge found that the witnesses have not supported the *3* 18appln26o20 prosecution case, the appeal preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed. 5. It is stated that the learned JMFC had directed the accused persons to deposit fine amount of Rs.1000/- each while convicting them under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The said fine amount is deposited by the accused persons. As such, the order has been complied with. 6. Having carefully considered the evidence on record and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, I find that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The material contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses create reasonable doubt regarding the allegations constituting the offences for which the accused have been acquitted. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible and reasonable view of the evidence. It cannot be said that the findings are perverse, manifestly illegal or based on no evidence. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own view merely because another view of the evidence may also be possible. No *4* 18appln26o20 jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated warranting interference with the impugned orders. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. kps ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )