JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. 1. First informant Babarao Sitaram Lashkar is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 20/08/2002 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No. 76/1998, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted respondent Nos. 1 to 10 for the offence punishable u/s. 436, 427, 448 read with 34 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. S.S. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D.R. Kale, the learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 11 - State. Though respondent Nos. 1 to 10 are served, their counsel remained absent. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is as under. First informant Babarao is resident of Indira Nagar, Kalamnuri. The accused persons formed unlawful assembly on 22/11/1997 and in furtherance of their common object, committed mischief by fire as they set ablaze the huts owned by the first informant and others. They also entered into the land in possession of the first informant and other witnesses and thus committed house trespass. According to the prosecution, the accused persons dis-mental the huts and threw utensils, thereby caused wrongful loss to the first informant and the prosecution witnesses. According to the prosecution, the prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate, Hingoli was in operation. The accused persons, who formed assembly, have committed offence punishable u/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The report of the incident was lodged by first informant Babarao on 22/11/1997 at police station Kalamnuri after completion of the usual investigation. Charge sheet was filed. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, in all 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 4. Though the accused persons were charged that they have committed offence punishable u/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the prosecution could not file any prohibitory order showing that there was any proclamation by the District Magistrate. In that view of the matter, the learned Court below has rightly acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s. 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 5. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 2 Gayabai, who was cited by the prosecution as eye witness, has correctly reached to the conclusion that she can not be eye witness, since she has admitted that she had also gone to work along with male members at the relevant time. 5. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 2 Gayabai, who was cited by the prosecution as eye witness, has correctly reached to the conclusion that she can not be eye witness, since she has admitted that she had also gone to work along with male members at the relevant time. Further, the learned trial Court noted that her version from the witness box is improved version. 6. Though the prosecution has examined Shakuntalabai [P.W. 3] as independent witness, her evidence is hardly of any assistance to the prosecution. From her evidence, it is clear that her house is situated at 2 furlong away from the spot of incident. Though she has doused the fire, she is very specific in her evidence that she has no knowledge that who has set the huts ablaze. Therefore, it is clear that she can not be eye witness and at the most she has reached to the spot after the incident and made an attempt to extinguish fire. Babarao [P.W. 4], the first informant is also not eye witness. At the relevant time, he had gone to village Kalamnuri. He received information from his kid that the huts were dis-mental and set on fire and, therefore, he rushed near the huts and went to the police station. He is frank enough in his evidence that he is unaware as to why the huts were dis-mental. P.W. 5 is one Bainabai. Her evidence would reveal that she was sleeping in the house. That time, some persons gave push to her and pelted stones and those persons set the houses ablaze. Unfortunately, this prosecution witness is blind. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is of no use to the prosecution for fixing the identity of the accused persons as perpetrators. P.W. 6 Ambadas has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution. P.W. 7 Satwa states that he only know accused No. 1 Vilas, however, his evidence does not disclose even his presence on the spot or that he has seen the actual incidence of setting the huts ablaze. P.W. 9 is one Shankar Limbole. He has identified only accused No. 1 Vilas in the Court. His evidence would reveal that on the date of the incident, he was present at his house and accused No. 1 Vilas asked the persons present on the spot to set the fire. P.W. 9 is one Shankar Limbole. He has identified only accused No. 1 Vilas in the Court. His evidence would reveal that on the date of the incident, he was present at his house and accused No. 1 Vilas asked the persons present on the spot to set the fire. Therefore, he went to the site, where the persons residing in the huts were working. Though he has claimed in his Examination-in-chief that he was present in the house at the time of incident, in the cross examination this witness has candidly admitted that he had gone for work along with others. Thereby, a doubt is created as to really he was present on the spot and he has seen accused No. 1 Vilas instigating others to set the huts ablaze. 7. The learned trial Court, on evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, in my view, has reached to the correct conclusion that the prosecution witness could not identify the other accused persons. The Court below is also right in expressing doubt about the evidence of P.W. 5 Bainabai and P.W. 9 Shankar in respect of presence of accused No. 1 Vilas. 8. The view taken by the learned trial Court, in my opinion, is a possible view when he has acquitted the accused persons. The prosecution was unable to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, no fault can be found with the Judgment of the learned trial Court when the learned Judge acquitted the accused persons. In that view of the matter, the present Revision Application is dismissed. Rule discharged.