* 1 * Cri.Appeal-138/1991 14.9.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 138 OF 1991 [BY STATE AGAINST ACQUITTAL] The State of Maharashtra [at the instance of Antop Hill Police Station] .......Appellant (Orig.Complainant) V/S. Mrs. Janice Peters Eucress Building, 7th Floor, Antop Hill, Bombay .........Respondent (Orig.Accused) * * * * * * Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for the appellant-State. None for the respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 14 September, 2010. JUDGMENT : 1. This Appeal is filed by the State to challenge the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. It is the prosecution’s case that on 6th December, 1995 at about 8.00 a.m. in front of Eucress Housing * 2 * Cri.Appeal-138/1991 14.9.2010 Society, the respondent caused grievous hurt to the complainant with a chappal causing injury to her eye. The complainant was sent to the hospital by the police and on 7th January, 1985 an FIR was registered against the respondent. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. Her defence was that as a member of Eucress Housing Society she was in support, alongwith a majority of occupants of the building, of giving the common hall below the building on rental basis to the Bank of India. This was opposed by the complainant. However, the Hall ultimately came to be given to Bank of India which opened a Branch in the premises. The complainant and her brother were upset with the respondent over the issue. On 6th December, 1985 the complainant assaulted the respondent with high heeled shoe while she was taking her daughter to the school bus. 2. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses to bring home the guilt of the respondent. The only material among them is P.W. 1, the complainant herself. P.W.2 to P.W.5 are the Doctors and P.W. 6 is the Investigation Officer. P.W.1 deposed about the incident of assault stating that the respondent assaulted her with high heel * 3 * Cri.Appeal-138/1991 14.9.2010 shoe by striking the same on the right side of her face leaving a bleeding injury. P.W.2-the Doctor from Sion Hospital, however, deposed about an injury to the left eye of the complainant and issued a Certificate to that effect. Then, the prosecution examined three more witnesses to establish that the injury was infact to the right eye and not the left eye. It was the evidence of P.W.6-the Investigation Officer that initially the complaint of the complainant was recorded as an N.C. complaint in which the complainant alleged of an assault with a chappal. This version has been changed by her at the time of deposition to state that the assault was by an high heeled sandal. The change apparently took place because of the opinion of the Doctors examined by the prosecution, that the injury caused to the complainant could not have been caused by a chappal. The inconsistent statements, improvement in the version and contradictions in the opinion of the experts make the entire case of the prosecution as regards the assault and the injury a suspect. 3. According to the complainant, the respondent assaulted her because the name of the respondent was displayed on the notice board of the Society as a defaulter in payment of outgoings. * 4 * Cri.Appeal-138/1991 14.9.2010 However, the complainant in her cross-examination has admitted in terms that she does not have any Flat in Eucress Housing Society and she is not a member of the Society. Nor is she concerned with the working of the Society. There is also an admission that there is a Bank of India functioning from the ground floor of the Society. In view of this admission in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and the medical evidence contrary to the allegation in the complaint, the trial court acquitted the respondent with an observation that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent in respect of the alleged incident. 4. Perusal of the record, shows that, all the observations of the learned trial judge are completely justified. There are serious infirmities in the evidence, as also, contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The trial court was therefore justified in acquitting the respondent. Infact the present appeal was a wholly unnecessary exercise by the State which ought to have been avoided. The Appeal is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]