1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.344 OF 1998. The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant. Versus 1. Baluseth @ Ganeshseth S/o Ratanlal Chandak, Aged 24 years, Occ.Business, R/o Nanded. 2. Gopaldasseth S/o Ramkunwarji Chandak, Aged 37 years, Occ.Business, R/o Nanded, Both R/o Ashtavinayak Enterprises, Shivajinagar, Nanded. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for the Appellant. Mr.R.R.Mantri, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.09.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Taking exception to the judgment of acquittal in a Criminal case (RCC No.1036/1995) 2 the State has come up in appeal. 2. The Respondents were tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Nanded, for offences punishable U/ss 353, 332, 504 read with 34 of the I.P.Code. They are the original accused Nos.1 and 2. Indisputably, original accused No.3 was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable U/s 332 of the I.P.Code and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months. He too came to be acquitted for the offences U/ss 353 and 504 of the I.P.Code. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that P.W.Manik is employee of the Municipal Corporation, Nanded. He was working as an Octroi Inspector. On 16.11.1995, he noticed around mid- day that two persons were carrying a TV set. He immediately went to verify whether octroi duty was paid. Though he asked, those two persons to wait, yet, neither of them paid any heed. The T.V. was being transported on a scooter vehicle. 3 He gave a chase to the scooter vehicle. He noticed that the said persons were in the premises of M/s Ashtavinayak Enterprises. He asked the Respondent No.1 whether the octroi payment was made. In the meanwhile, the appellant No.2 came out of the shop. The Respondent No.2 gave abuses to him in filthy language. The Respondent No.2 further assaulted him and, therefore, he fell down. He went to the Police Station. His complaint was reduced into writing vide Exh.47. 4. Cross-examination of P.W.5 Manik, would reveal that there are shops on either side of the road and around 50 public members had gathered while the incident was yet to be completed. 5. The version of P.W.Manik is to the effect that he lodged the FIR (Exh.47) without loss of much time. It is worthy to be noted that the testimony of P.W.Manik does not find corroboration from the testimony of P.W.Radhakishan. His version purports to show that P.W.Manik reported to him that the 4 Respondent No.2 mounted assault on him. The version of P.W.Manik reveals that P.W.Radhakishan was present at the spot when the incident was going on. However, P.W. Radhakishan does not say so. The shop of the appellants is situated by side of main road. In his cross-examination, P.W. Radhakishan admitted that his Baniyan was not seized. His version reveals that he did not witness the incident of assault by the Respondent No.2 on P.W.Manik. 6. From version of P.W.4 Dr.Shubhangi, it would be amply clear that P.W.Manik was having two injuries, one contusion 3 cm.x 3 cm. above left eyebrow, abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. at right middle finger. The medical evidence and the ocular evidence does not go hand in hand. There is absolutely no reason ascribed by P.W.Manik in the context of the abrasion injury caused to the right middle finger. The recitals of the Medico Legal Certificate (Exh.44) also would show that there were only two injuries found on the person of P.W.Manik. The injuries were simple in nature. The spectacle of the complainant 5 (P.W.Manik) is said to have been broken. However, the broken spectacle was not seized by the Police. The testimony of P.W.Manik purports to show that he sustained injury near the eye when he was pushed down by the Respondent No.2. It is seen from the record that P.W. 1 Vijay Ujedkar's name is shown in the FIR. The testimony of P.W.Vijay does not subscribe the prosecution story regarding the assault mounted by the Respondent No.2 on P.W.Manik. It appears that from the evidence on record that there was only manhandling of P.W.Manik because he attempted to enter the shop of the Respondents. There is considerable discrepancy between the version of P.W.Manik and the other witnesses as regards the alleged assault. The learned Magistrate duly appreciated the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Under these circumstances, I find it difficult to hold that the charge is brought home to the Respondents or either of them. It is well settled that when two views are possible interference in the judgment of acquittal may not be proper. 6 7. In the result, the findings of the trial Court are not patently erroneous and as such there is no substantial reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal34498