-: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 APPLICATION NO.1596 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1596 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1596 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. ... Applicant. (Orig. Complainant) V/s. Laxman Yadu Gogawale. ... Respondents. .... Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal, A.P.P.for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. .... 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 : 20TH JUNE, 2008. : 20TH JUNE, 2008. : 20TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The State is in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 326, 504 of I.P.C. 2. The Respondent herein has been acquitted for the offences in Sessions Case No.123 of 2002. The evidence on record is that the Accused herein himself received serious injuries and Dilip, the brother of the Accused died. The injury suffered by the complainant as noted by the learned Judge are simple in nature. The case of the complainant was that Laxman hit Dilip with an axe on his head. Similarly, further evidence is that Laxman gave blow of the axe on head of the father. Though it is true that Santosh -:2:- Shivaji Pawar had received injury on his head, it has been described as simple. It cannot be understood how if an axe was hit on the head of Santosh it would merely cause a simple injury. Similarly, if the axe was used on the father of Santosh why the father did not suffer any grievous injury. The evidence on record would indicate that it is the Accused and his father who had received grievous injuries resulting in the death of one and accused suffering injuries. 3. In the instant case, Police have also filed case against the complainant Santosh and others being Sessions Case No.7 of 2000. At the time of the Judgment it was pending. 4. After considering the Judgment of the learned Judge, we find that the learned Judge has considered in depth the evidence on record, the nature of injury, the seizure of the weapons. The evidence shows that when Laxman came to the house of the complainant Laxman was not having any weapon in his hand. In our opinion the learned Judge is therefore right in acquitting the Respondent herein of the charges levelled. 5. Not only did the prosecution pursue the complaint against the Respondent before the Trial Court and though in the course of recording evidence -:3:- it has come on record that the Accused has received injuries and his brother died in the incident even after the acquittal the present application for leave to appeal has been filed. We fail to understand why the valuable time of this Court was wasted by the State in such case where the Respondent received injury and resulted in the death of one and serious injuries to Respondent No.1 himself. 6. Considering the usual test while considering the case of granting leave to appeal against acquittal, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to grant leave. Hence, the application is rejected. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)