1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1280 OF 2010 Nagnath s/o Dhullapa Mahajan ...Petitioner VERSUS Nagnath s/o Vaijnath Kamble ...Respondent ..... G.D.Kale, advocate holding for Shri R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for the applicant A.V.Ghuge, advocate for sole respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 5 th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard G.D.Kale, advocate holding for Shri R.T.Nagargoje, advocate for the applicant and A.V.Ghuge, advocate for sole respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant (original 2 complainant) seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2010, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambajogai in S.C.C. No. 1031 of 2008, acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.2010 and the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 4 The accused faced the trial for the charges against him under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5 In support of it’s case, prosecution examined four witnesses i.e. PW1 complainant Nagnath, PW2 son of the complainant Pradeep, PW3 Dr.Anant Gitte and PW4 P.H.C. Bhaskar Sanap-investigating officer. 6 Learned trial Judge has observed in para 6 of the judgment that all the four witnesses of the complainant have fully supported the complainant’s case and there is no doubt that their evidence is not suffering from any serious infirmity. Admittedly, the 3 dispute arose on account of common bandh between the complainant’s land and the land of the accused. However, learned trial Judge further observed that the said evidence appears to be stereo type and there was no independent, cogent and reliable evidence. 7 The evidence of the complainant and the complaint disclose that one Sambha, servant was present at the time of occurrence of the incident, but said person namely Sambha is the servant of the accused, and therefore, there was no propriety in examining the said person namely Sambha as a witness by the complainant. Besides that, there was no other person, and hence, there is no question of examining any independent witness, as observed by the learned trial Judge. 8 Apparently there is prima facie case against the accused persons, and hence, leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal as prayed for is granted. 9 Present application be treated as appeal. Admit. Shri A.V.Ghuge, learned counsel accepts service of notice for the respondent after admission. Respondent/accused to furnish bail in 4 the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial court within the period of six weeks. R. and Ps. be sent back to the trial Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1280.10