* 1 * Cri.Appln. 3265/2009 2/12/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3265 OF 2009 [FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 Mr. Satyawan Bankat Suryavanshi ....Applicant/Orig.Complainant V/S. 1. Mr. Kondiba Bhimrao Suryavanshi & Ors. ....Respondents/Orig.Accused ********* Mr. Balwant Patole, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for State-respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 2nd December, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This application is filed by the original complainant for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal dated 22nd April, 2009 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vashi in C.C. No. 451 of 2002. * 2 * Cri.Appln. 3265/2009 2/12/2010 2. The respondents are the relatives of the applicant being his uncles and cousins. There are disputes between the two over agricultural property which has culminated in Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 2001 at Udgir, District-Latur. The applicant filed a private complaint alleging that when he had gone to Udgir to attend to the civil proceedings, the respondents had threatened to have him killed through their goons at Mumbai. He had therefore, on 19th December, 2001 complained to the police. His complaint was recorded as N.C. Complaint No. 202 of 2001. Then, on 20th January, 2002 at about 6.45 p.m. while he was sitting in his shop at Shivaji Nagar, Nerul, Navi Mumbai alongwith Shivaji Jadhav, Govind Chavan and 3-4 others persons, one unknown person came to his shop and called him outside. When the applicant came outside the shop, the unknown person pointed out to a group of six persons standing on the other side of the road and told him that they are calling him. When the applicant went to the group, he saw that they were the respondents. They started assaulting him with fists and kicks. Respondent no.4 Anant Suryavanshi took out a knife from his pocket and tried to give a blow to the applicant. When witnesses Shivaji Jadhav, Govind Chavan, Ashok Gopi and Rajput came to the spot to * 3 * Cri.Appln. 3265/2009 2/12/2010 rescue the applicant, all the respondents ran away. While running away, they threatened the applicant with dire consequences. Thereafter the applicant went to Nerul Police Station to lodge a complaint. However, his complaint was recorded as an N.C. Complaint bearing N.C. No.101/2002. Since the police took no action on the complaint of the applicant, he filed a private complaint being C.C. No. 451 of 2002. On the complaint, process was issued against all the respondents under Sections 146, 147, 149, 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code. 3. The respondents defence was of total denial. They claimed that it was a false case filed against them. At the relevant date and time, they were not in Mumbai but were at Latur. 4. In order to establish his complaint, the applicant examined two witnesses i.e. himself and Gopi Laxman Rajput. The respondents examined Raosaheb Malwa Bhakre and one Devidas Malhari as defence witnesses. On appreciation of the evidence led before it, the learned trial court found that the applicant had failed to establish any of the offences and acquitted the respondents of the offences alleged in the complaint. 5. Mr. Patole, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that, * 4 * Cri.Appln. 3265/2009 2/12/2010 the order of acquittal has been passed by the trial court without proper appreciation of the evidence. He also submits that the observations of the trial court about the injury sustained by the applicant are imaginary and not based on the evidence produced. 6. The trial court disbelieved both the prosecution witnesses in view of major contradiction in their depositions. It has been the complaint of the applicant and also his evidence that on the date and time of the incident, an unknown person had called him outside the shop, whereas, the witness examined by the applicant stated that the person who had called the complainant out of the shop was one of the respondents. This was a material contradiction. The trial Court further noted that there was no claim of any injury sustained by the applicant, nor, any medical evidence produced which is unnatural. It has observed that if the allegation of the applicant that he was assaulted by a group of 6 to 8 persons by fist blows and kicks is to be accepted, there ought to have been evidence of the injury sustained. An assault by 6 to 8 persons even with fist blows and kicks would naturally result into some injury. The trial Court also took note of the fact that the applicant did not produce copy of the N.C. Complaint No. 202 of 2001. * 5 * Cri.Appln. 3265/2009 2/12/2010 7. There is no infirmity in the above reasoning of the trial Court. It’s observations as regards the injury can also not be said to be purely imaginary. It is a logical deduction arrived at based on the allegations made by the applicant. In the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the offences alleged against them. There is no case made out whatsoever to justify interference with the order. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. As a consequence, the Criminal Appeal also does not survive. The same also stands disposed off. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]