1 APPLN-662.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.662 OF 2011 Victor Anthony Lobo .... Applicant Vs. Parveen Hauman Mogre & Anr. .... Respondents Shri D.M. Gupte for the Applicant. Ms U.V. Kejariwal, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 27, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, allowing the appeal against the respondent's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and acquitting him of the said offence. The applicant had filed a report with the police alleging that the present respondent and his father had caused injury to him, abused him and caused damage to his spectacles and also trespassed upon his property. The role attributed to the original accused No.2, the father of the present respondent, was of instigation. The learned Magistrate held upon 2 APPLN-662.11 appreciation of the evidence that no offence was made out against the original accused No.2 Hanuman Mogre. She also held that charge of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 426 and 447 of the IPC was not proved against the respondents, but held the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer SI for three months. The learned Sessions Judge held that the possibility of the applicant having suffered the injury by dashing against a tree or falling while hurriedly going away on being accosted by the accused while taking photographs existed and therefore benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused. The learned counsel for the applicant states that there is nothing to show that there was any tree in the courtyard where the applicant could have dashed. He also submits that there was no reason to give any benefit of doubt to the respondent since the applicant was merely taking photographs from the common courtyard and therefore there would be no cause for the applicant to run or fall or get injured. When the learned trial Magistrate did not believe the story of the applicant and his witness in relation to allegations in respect of one of the accused persons and also found the 3 APPLN-662.11 applicant to be exaggerative, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge erred in concluding that the allegation could not have formed the foundation of conviction in the context of the litigation going on between the parties for the last eighteen years. Since the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is neither perverse nor improbable, leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)