1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1826/2008 [State of Maharashtra .vrs. Tejram Tukaram Hattimare and two others] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the Appellant/State, Mr. I.S. Charlewar, Advocate for the respondents. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ DATED : JULY 11, 2008 1. Heard the learned APP for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Accused no.1 Tejram, his wife accused no.3 Devkabai and his son accused no.2 Sunil were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 326, 307, 506 Part-II r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations are that on 11.2.2006 around 3.00 p.m. PW 1 Raju had gone to the house of the accused persons for demanding back the amount of handloan given by him to Tejram. It is alleged that at that 2 time the accused persons abused him on caste. Thereafter around 7.00 p.m. accused no.2 Sunil assaulted him with stick and injured him. 3. As regards the first incident, PW 9 Radhelal Meshram, who is real brother of PW 1 Raju Meshram so also PW 10 Ashwin Radhelal Meshram (who is the nephew of PW 1 Raju Meshram) turned hostile. The only independent witness PW 2 Manoramabai Lahuji Ghodeswar was disbelieved by the trial court because of infirmities in her evidence. As regards second incident, PW 10 Ashwin turned hostile as well as independent witness PW 3 Uttam also turned hostile. Thus, there was no corroboration to the version of PW 1 Raju even on the point of assault. The trial court, therefore, disbelieved the prosecution version. In our opinion, there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the trial court. Hence, leave to appeal is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande