1 APPLN 5406 OF 2009 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5406 OF 2009. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant -versus 1. Rajednra Revanappa Dashal 2. Bhimrao Revanappa Dashal, 3. Sou. Sunita Vidyanand Dashal, 4. Sou. Mahananda Rajendra Dashal, All residing at Daribadachi, taluka: jath, District : Sangli .. Respondents Mrs. A.A. Mane, for the Applicant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 6th January, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2005, whereby he reversed the conviction of the respondents recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jath, convicting the respondent Nos 1 and 2 2 APPLN 5406 OF 2009 for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo R.I., for three months and fine of Rs. 1000/- and respondent Nos 3 and 4 convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that there was previous enmity between the parties. The report mentions that two persons have intervened and separated warring factions. While those two persons were not examined all the four persons of the same family who were injured in the assault are examined. Though one of them had suffered fracture, curiously the respondents were charged only for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Code. Learned Sessions Judge held that the evidence by four members of the family was cryptic and considering the nature of injuries, the possibility of exaggeration in order to increase the number of accused persons and also aggravating of the offence could not be ruled out. Though the judgment of Sessions Judge could have been better articulated, view taken by him does not appear to be perverse calling for interference by this Court. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)