( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4415 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Ramesh s/o. Waman Alte and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the applicant/State. Shri P.C. Wagh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 04.03.2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for the applicant and Adv. Shri P.C. Wagh for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. This is an application for leave to file appeal against order of acquittal passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 100 of 2008, decided on 04.09.2009. The respondents were tried for offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 506-Part II read with section 34 of the I.P.C. ( 2 ) 2. Briefly stated, it is prosecution case that on 14.10.2007 complainant Vinayak Kulkarni lodged complaint that at about 10.00 a.m. on that day, he along with his son and labourers were working in land Gat No. 98 of village Masla, Tal. & Dist. Latur. At that time respondent Nos. 1 to 4 came there and obstructed them, abused and assaulted the complainant with fist blows, kicks and sticks. The complaint fell down. Respondent No.1 inflicted blow of an axe on his left leg. The complainant’s son tried to rescue, but he was also beaten by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 with fist blows, kicks and sticks. Vikram Kadam, Jinku Kadam and Digambar Kadam intervened and stopped the quarrel. The complainant lodged the complaint, statements of various witnesses were recorded. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was sent. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, because Special Case No. 3 of 2008, which was counter-case filed by the respondents against the complainant was pending in the Sessions Court. 3. In this case the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses including the I.O. The main evidence is of P.W.1- Vinayak, P.W.4-Gajanan and P.W.6-Digambar. ( 3 ) 4. P.W.1-complainant Vinayak stated in his deposition that on 14.10.2007 when he along with labourers Vikram, Jinku and Digambar were working in his land Gat No. 98, the respondents came there and obstructed sowing of seeds. Respondent No.1 was armed with an axe. He inflicted blow of axe on the left leg of the complainant. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 were armed with sticks. Respondent No.3 was armed with stone, who assaulted Gajanan and at that time both were injured. It is argued that though on oath P.W.1-Vinayak stated that respondent No.3 used stone in causing injuries, the complaint (Exh.19) does not disclose that any stone was used for causing injury. P.W.4-Gajanan has also not supported case of respondent No.3 causing injury with stone. P.W.4-Ganajan has stated same story and he stated that it was respondent No.1 who gave blow with axe on left leg of his father i.e. complainant and other three accused beat him with sticks and thereafter the labourers intervened. P.W.6- Digambar is admittedly a labourer working in the land of the complainant at the relevant time. He stated that they were sowing seeds in the land and were also ploughing. At that time the respondent came there and obstructed the sowing. ( 4 ) Thereafter, all the respondents scuffled with complainant- Vinayak. Respondent No.1-Ramesh caught hold of Vinayak, respondent No. 3-Shardabai inflicted blow with stick on the head of the complainant from back side. The complainant was pulled down by respondent No.1 after inflicting blow with stick on left leg. The witness did not speak about injuries to Gajanan. He admitted that the respondents have filed complaint against complainant for committing offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. So, all the witnesses who supported the prosecution case are interested witnesses. Complainant-Vinayak is accused in the counter case. P.W.7- Waman Rathod, who is I.O., stated that respondents have lodged complaint against the complainant and 13 others and when respondent Nos. 1 to 4 came to police station, they were in injured condition. Respondent No.2 was serious. Therefore, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Latur. 5. The learned Sessions Judge observed that in this case admittedly there was dispute between the complainant on one hand and accused/respondents on the other hand over boundary and the matter was adjudicated in the High Court. ( 5 ) The High Court directed both the parties to get the lands measured as there was dispute over the boundary. It appears that the respondents obstructed sowing under impression that the complainant was showing seeds in their land. 6. In this case, injury certificate of P.W.1-Vinayak is produced on record at Exh.29 and it shows that complainant – Vinayak had only one injury. It is described as stab injury of 1 x 1 cm, caused within 24 hours. It was said to be simple injury, caused with sharp object. The Court can take note of the fact that depth of the injury was not given and secondly if the injury is caused with axe, it cannot be stab injury of size 1 x 1 cm. This also falsifies the evidence of P.W.6-Digambar that respondent No.1 had held complainant and respondent No.3 had given blows with stick on the back side of head of Gajanan. As per medical certificate of Gajanan, there was one contusion on chest of size 4 x 4 cms. There was also contusion over left wrist of 6 x 6 cms. Those were simple injuries caused within 24 hours. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the injuries on the accused persons were not explained by the prosecution witnesses. ( 6 ) 7. P.W.5-Mohan Dhumal was an independent witness, but he did not support the prosecution case. He stated that there was quarrel between complainant Vinayak and accused and both assaulted each other. According to this witness, none of the accused was holding any weapon in his hand. P.W.5- Mohan was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the A.P.P. 8. Considering totality of the circumstances, in my considered opinion, the view taken is reasonable and probable view and this is not case where leave to appeal can be granted. Hence, leave to file appeal against order of acquittal is rejected; the criminal application is dismissed and disposed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/MAR10/cra4415.09