-:1:- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2007 APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1383 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 1383 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO. 1383 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2007 REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2007 REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2007 Aruna Chandrakant Saste. ... Appellant. V/s. Dhanaji @ Dhananjay Vithal Saste & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Rahul S. Kate for the Appellant. Mr. V.S. Talkute for Respondents 1 to 9. Ms. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2008. : 16TH APRIL, 2008. : 16TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2007 is for enhancement of sentence imposed against the original Accused Nos.1 and 4. The learned Judge by Order dated 30.11.2006 found them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code and ordered them to be sentenced to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for one month. The other accused were acquitted. 2. Application No.1383 of 2007 is against the order of the learned Judge acquitting the accused other than original Accused Nos.1 and 4. -:2:- 3. Criminal Revision Application No.48 of 2007 is by the complainant against acquittal of the accused of the charge under Section 307 and other charges. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the State - the complainant as also for the Respondents. The learned Court in so far, the injury caused to Chandrakant based on the evidence of Dr. Sampat Patil noted his evidence that there was no wound on the head of Chandrakant though in the examination in chief he had stated otherwise. Considering the nature of the injury and the absence of the injury on any vital part of the body, the learned Judge acquitted the Accused Nos. 1 and 4 of the offence under Section 307. Various other reasons have also been recorded for acquittal. In so far as the evidence of Aruna Chandrakant Saste, the wife of Chandrakant, it was noted that there is no other corroborating evidence to show the presence of the other accused at the spot except for Accused Nos.1 and 4. 5. On behalf of the complainant, the learned Counsel pointed out, that to the evidence of Usha D. Saste for the general observations that she saw all the accused. She has however not named any of the accused. This would therefore not corroborate the evidence of Aruna. -:3:- 6. Considering the above, in our opinion, we cannot find any fault with the reasons recorded by the learned Court. In the light of that, both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Application are dismissed. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)