.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1387 OF 2007 [FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Laxman Bachan Chouhan. ..Respondent. .. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.S.V.Kotwal, Adv. i/b. Mr.D.C.Mishra, Adv. for the Respondent. .. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND CORAM : F.I. REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : APRIL 02, 2008. DATED : APRIL 02, 2008. DATED : APRIL 02, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard both sides. 2. By judgment and order dated 16th December, 2006 passed in Sessions Case No.431 of 2001, the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan acquitted the respondent-accused of the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27(2) of Arms Act. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of respondent-accused under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 27(2) of Arms Act, the applicant-State has preferred this application for .{2}. leave to appeal. 3. We have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence produced by the learned APP. 4. The prosecution case is that the respondent-accused shot PW-1 Pannalal. In the present case, there is delay in lodging the FIR. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Moreover, as per the complainant PW-1 Pannalal the incident took place between 7:15 a.m. and 7:45 a.m.. However the evidence of doctor PW-5 Dr.Vikas discloses that he had examined the complainant Pannalal at about 7:30 a.m. and injury report Exh.32 was issued to him. This itself creates doubt regarding the manipulation in respect of complaint and medical examination of complainant Pannalal. 5. It is pertinent to note that Pannalal has sustained injuries only on his left foot. The said injury was 1/4 cm X 1/4 cm. In his evidence before the Court, the complainant has deposed that the respondent-accused fired gun-shot on his foot. However, in his complaint the complainant has stated .{3}. that the accused fired gun-shot on the floor and some of the pellets and lead pieces from the cartridges hit his foot and caused injury. This clearly shows that the complainant Pannalal has improved his version in respect of respondent-accused firing on his foot. 6. The accused has raised a defence of right of private defence. Two shots were fired by the respondent-accused; the first shot was fired in the air and the second shot was fired on the ground. If there was any intention on the part of the respondent-accused to kill or to commit murder of the complainant, he would have fired on the vital part of the body or in any event above the waist. It is nobody’s case that the respondent-accused had fired on any vital part of the body. Moreover, the doctor has been unable to depose as to how many days the complainant was in hospital. The doctor has not deposed that the complainant was operated. No X-ray plates have been brought on record. In such case, looking to the evidence of both the doctors, it cannot be said that the complainant Pannalal sustained grievous gun-shot injuries. It is also .{4}. pertinent to note that doctor PW-6 Shrikrishna has stated that the injury is possible by hard and rough surface. In such case injury by gun-shot appears to be ruled out. PW-5 Dr.Vikas has stated that this type of injury is possible by pointed and sharp sand. In such case the possibility of injury by gun-shot would be ruled out. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)