1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1679 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Sambhaji Baburao Pawar & anr. ..Respondents Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P, for the State Mr.Sudatta Patil, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. The complainant and accused Sambhaji Pawar, his son Kunal Pawar are resident of Keviz Park. The witnesses P.W.3 Vasantrao Kadam and P.W.5 Dilip Nezkar are also residing at Keviz Park. The parties had constituted a Pat Sanstha named Nagala Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha registered on 30th August, 2000 of which accused No.1 was founder member. Office of the Credit Society was in the house of accused No.1 upto 31st March, 2001 and on 2 that date the complainant and other witnesses shifted office articles from the house of the accused for which the matter was reported to police, of theft against the complainant and witnesses. The accused specifically pleads that it was to give go bye to the prosecution a false and concocted story of the incident dated 1st April, 2001 is carved by the complainant. 3. The panchanama of the spot which was drawn immediately after the incident, does not show any broken pieces or pans of windows though, F.I.R so refers. Injury Certificate of the complainant at page No.29 specifies that Dr.Jyotsana Arunkumar Deshmukh had an occasion to examine complainant Varsha Shinde and she noticed abrasion and tenderness over right shoulder and knee. She also noticed identical injuries to Nandkumar Shinde. Injury Certificate at Exh.48 was prepared after four years and seven months, on the basis of case papers. The learned Judge found such case papers are not produced nor they bear signature of the witnesses. The Injury Certificate is silent about 3 the date and time on which the injured was examined. She did not even inform the police at the material time about the nature of the injuries and such Certificate is not issued as MLC Certificate. The injuries were simple and were possible due to fall. The learned Judge noticed that conduct of the two witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.5 could not be relied and I find substance as they faced Criminal prosecution at the hands of the accused having barged his house and committed theft on earlier date. The learned Judge noticed that ingredients of the Sections 504 or 506 or 427 are not carved out from the evidence or from the F.I.R. Taking survey of all the aspects and he acquitted accused of the charge levelled against them. The reasoning of the learned Judge in the facts & circumstances is only possible reasoning. Hence, leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)