1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1884 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST. NO. 438 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. APPLICANT VERSUS Yuvraj Babu Rathod & another .. RESPONDENTS Smt. S.S. Autade, APP for the State. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 1 st July, 2009. PER COURT : 1 This is an application seeking leave to present appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned 7 th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur in Criminal Case no. 594/06 decided on 25-2-2008. 2 Informant Bhivaji Rathod lodged information on 10-7-2006 alleging that the accused Yuvraj Rathod and Kantabai have abused his wife Dhanabai and also hit her with an axe which caused injury to her head. In response to the information lodged by Bhivaji, offence punishable under section 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered being crime no. 86/05. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. At trial, accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution evidence consists of four 2 witnesses. Trial court after recording evidence of the prosecution found that the charge against the accused is not sustainable and as such, directed acquittal of the accused. 3 On perusal of the judgment, it transpires that the evidence of the prosecution witnessses is discrepant. The complainant has specifically stated during cross examination that when the accused arrived at the scene he was not having any weapon in his hand. However, he has also at the same time stated that the accused Yuvraj has dealt a blow with the help of an axe. Evidence of the Medical Officer is also not worthy to be relied upon. There appears to be discrepancy in regard to the age of injury in the certificate issued at exh. 31 and the original record maintained by hospital and produced at exh. 32. Considering all these discrepancies, the trial court was justified in directing acquittal of the accused. This is not a fit case for causing interference in exercise of powers under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Application seeking leave to file appeal therefore stands rejected. Consequently, appeal fails and stand dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/criappln1884.08.odt