RAMESH ARJUN MHADGUT Vs. MADHUKAR SABAJI CHINDARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Kapse for the Petitioner and Shri Salvi A.P.P. for the State. Perused the judgment of the trial Court and also deposition of P.W.2 Arun Babaji Sarmalkar, a copy of which is produced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner today. The witnesses have turned hostile and therefore, the learned Judge did not find it necessary to call the Doctor and the I.O. The medical evidence has been taken on record as it was not disputed and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to decide the case forthwith. I do not find that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge was in any way wrong, much less speaks of any malafide as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) This being the Revision application, the High Court cannot re-appraise the evidence and the view of the learned Sessions on the basis of evidence on record is not only plausible but is reasonable one and by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said to be perverse. Revision petition is dismissed.