1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.4110 of 2008 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... ... Applicant (orig.Complainant) v/s. Sarjerao Bhairu Jadhav & anr. ... Respondents (orig.Accused Nos.1 & 2) Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 11th August, 2009 P.C. : 1.We have heard Mrs.Deshmukh, learned APP. 2.This Application filed by the State seeks leave under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.165 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara. 3.Dattu, Vishnu and Bhairu were three brothers and there was partition amongst themselves regarding the properties in the year 1977. Dattu settled at village Gursale and Vishnu and Bhairu settled at village Umbarde. Bhairu was adopted by one Balkabai and 2 despite that Vishnu and Bhairu had remained as a joint family. Bhairu died in the year 1994 and his son Sarjerao, accused No.1 along with his wife Bharati, accused No.2, were the Legal Representatives and members of the joint family of Vishnu. Vishnu, the complainant and Sarjerao had some disputes after separation regarding the share in the land as well as the residential premises. The incident had taken place on 20.3.2007. Vishnu lodged a complaint with the Station Officer of Police Station Vaduj for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed and Sarjerao and his wife were put on trial in Sessions Case No.165 of 2007. The prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, including Vishnu, P.W.2. The trial Court considered the evidence of Dr.Ashok Tasgaonkar, P.W.5 and also the nature of injuries which were noted by him in the medical certificate issued at Exhibit-43. The Medical Officer admitted that there was no head injury sustained by Vishnu and the injury of fracture sustained by him was on the forehead, which was possible even by means of a stick blow or by a fall in the scuffle more so because Vishnu was of the age of 75 years. The sole witness, who was claimed to be present apart from the complainant, was P.W.3 Shripati. His testimony was found to be unreliable and 3 particularly because in the cross-examination he admitted to be standing by watching the attack on Vishnu. C.A. report at Exhibit-16 was also considered by the trial Court and it held that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We do not see any reason that the acquittal order calls for any reconsideration at our hands. 4.Hence, there is no case to grant leave to appeal under Section 378(3) and the Application is hereby rejected. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]