1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.331 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra Appellant V/s Bhausaheb S/o Barku Chavan and others. Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. Y. M. Kshirsagar, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.) DATE : 27th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. According to the prosecution on 04.10.2000 the complainant P.W. 1 Bhausaheb was going to his agricultural land in bullock-cart loaded with gunny bags of Bajara. On the way, the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 caught him and the Respondent No.1 dealt blow of axe on his head. The learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondents for the offence punishable under section 324 and 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There was single injury noticed on forehead of P.W. 1 Bhausaheb Dike. The version of P.W. 5 Dr. Khillare revealed that, the injury could have possibly occured due to friction of bamboo of the roof or while entering the hatched hut or by 2 means of nail. In other words, injury was not grievous . The learned Magistrate noticed that, there was a civil dispute about the use of cart way between the parties. The learned Magistrate also noticed that, the spot of incident is near the school and there were some houses in near by places. The Magistrate noticed that, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Though the P.W. 4 Bajirao was examined, the Magistrate has held that, the witness of the incident-complainant admitted that, he reached the spot after 15 minutes of his falling down on the ground. Thus, the P.W. 4 Bajirao could not have seen the incident of assault. The Investigating Officer was not examined. Considering the deficiencies, solitary version of the complainant was not believed by the Trial Court. No serious error appears to have been committed by the Trial Court. Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed. (V. R. KINGAONKAR) JUDGE GAS/criapp331.03