1 cri appln 1724.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1724 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus 1. Ram Pandurang Datke and another .. Respondents Shri V. D. Rakh, A.P.P. for the Applicant/State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned A.P.P. taken me through the record and proceedings. There is evidence on record in the nature of injury certificates at Exhibit No. 65 and 66, however, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the respondent. Therefore, this Court may allow this application seeking leave to appeal. 2. I have given due consideration to the submissions of learned A.P.P. and also perused the record and proceedings. The 2 cri appln 1724.10 trial Court in para 29 to 32 has considered the prosecution evidence brought on record. The Court has recorded that, it was the duty of the prosecution to bring before the Court the genesis of the crime in the matter in which it has occurred. On perusal of the discussion of the Trial Court in para 29 to 32, it appears that, the prosecution in the instant case tried to supress the genesis of the incident. Admittedly, the civil dispute is pending between the parties. The Trial Court has analysed the evidence and also considered the medical evidence in para 13 of the impugned judgment. The Court has opined that so far evidence of P.W. 1 complainant is concerned is doubtful. So far evidence of P.W. 2 and 3 is concerned it being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. The Court has also taken the note that the offence U/Sec. 307 of the I. P. Code is registered against the complainant on the complaint lodged by the respondent/accused. The Court has also taken the note that quarrel took place suddenly. Therefore, in my opinion, even whole incident has occurred at the spur of moment and the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident, in that case the Trial Court was correct in acquitting the respondent. The evidence has been considered by the Trial Court and possible view has been taken. I am not persuaded to take different view and even if any other view is 3 cri appln 1724.10 possible is not ground to interfere in the acquittal order. Therefore, in my opinion, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. Same stands confirmed. Application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. The Registry to sent back the original Record and Proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Feb. 11