1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4026 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Smt. Vijayamala Ratilal Naik. ..Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.J.Patil for applicant. Mr.D.R.More, APP for State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard. Learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State. For the reasons stated in the application, Application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 2. Application for leave to file Appeal is taken up for admission, by consent. 3. By the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the Judgment and 2 Order dated 7th May, 2009, thereby acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under section 323, 324 and 504 r/w 34 of I.P.Code. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that there was scuffle between the complainant and the accused on 30th August, 2005. When the husband of the complainant came to know about the same, he came on the spot and accused assaulted her husband. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the Respondent is charged for the offence punishable under section 336, 337, 323, 504, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.Code and at the conclusion of the trial, the accused came to be acquitted. Being aggrieved, present appeal is filed. 5. Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused. 6. The learned Trial Court while acquitting the Accused has found that there was variance in the version regarding incident given by various witnesses. It has been further found that FIR was lodged after a period of 8 days from the date of incident. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 3 7. Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. No perversity or impossibility is noticed so as to warrant interference. Hence, dismissed. (B.R.GAVAI,J)