[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.331 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Shri.Bhagwan Shankar Bhandari and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for Applicant-State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 22, 2008 DATE : APRIL 22, 2008 DATE : APRIL 22, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th October, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Respondents i.e. original accused Nos.1 to 3 of the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: [-2-] . That the buffalo of the complainant and that of the Respondents-accused dashed each other and hence, there was quarrel between the two sides. During the course of quarrel, P.W.2 Ashabai and her son P.W.3 Pradeep were assaulted by the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced by him as well as the impugned judgment and order. 4. In the present case, incident had occurred on 27th July, 2005, however FIR is lodged on 31st July, 2005. No plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for the delay caused in lodging the FIR. Moreover, case of Ashabai is that she was assaulted by accused no.3 with stick on her head and back and accused no.1 assaulted her by hand and rope. Ashabai was examined by P.W.5 Dr.Narendra and P.W.6 Dr.Krishna. Both the Doctors found injury only in the eye of Ashabai. It is pertinent to note that Ashabai has not stated that injury was caused to her eye due to assault by any of the accused persons or that any of the accused persons caused injury to her eye. In fact, P.W.5 [-3-] Dr.Narendra has stated that injury to the eye is possible by Stye. Though Ashabai claims that she was assaulted on her head and back, no injuries were found on her head and back but only injury was found to her eye. Thus, it is seen that the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses is not consistent. There is major discrepancy which goes to the root of the prosecution case. 5. It is also the prosecution case that P.W.3 Pradeep who is son of Ashabai, was also injured in the incident. However, no medical evidence has been produced by the prosecution nor any medical evidence has been led to show that Pradeep had sustained injuries in the incident. The case of the two injured eye witnesses is that they were assaulted with stick by accused. However, in the cross-examination, Ashabai has admitted that when accused came to the spot, the accused did not have stick in hand. The witness has not stated from where the stick suddenly appeared in the hand of the accused. Looking to the above aspects and the other aspects, the learned Judge acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offence under Section [-4-] 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. 6. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]