1 (APPLN-1300.11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1300 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant. V/s Ashok Dinkar Kale .... Respondent. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 29th November, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. The State has preferred this application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, acquitting the Respondent/accused of the offences punishable under sections 307, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and under section 37(1)(3)/135 of Bombay Police Act. 2 (APPLN-1300.11) 3. Brief facts are as under:- 4. A complaint was registered by one Bebitai B. Waghmare in which she alleged that the Respondent/accused inflicted a blow with knife on the stomach of her son Jaywant (P.W.6) and the Respondent’s son who was a juvenile on the date of the incident, had assaulted Jaywant with fist blows and kick blows. The incident took place on 8/10/2008 in the evening. According to complainant (P.W.2), initially there was an altercation between her son Jaywant and Suresh, the son of Respondent and, thereafter, in the evening, the Respondent/accused came to the house of the complainant and abused her son Jaywant and asked him to come outside and when her son went out, he gave a blow with knife on his stomach. After the complaint was registered, spot panchanama was prepared and the accused was arrested and Suresh Kale, the son of Respondent, produced knife and it was seized and the panchanama of seizure was prepared. The injury certificate was collected by the Investigating Officer. Suresh Kale, the son of Respondent, was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. Charge Sheet was filed against the Respondent. 5. Prosecution examined the complainant (P.W.2), the injured Jaywant (P.W.6) and other relatives of the complainant viz. Bharat Waghmare (P.W.5),Vikram (P.W.10) and Dr Hemlata Joshi (P.W.8) who examined the injured. The panch witness in respect of spot panchanama turned hostile 3 (APPLN-1300.11) and also the Investigating Officer Dy. SP Shinde (P.W.11). 6. Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was a material discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 regarding the assault on P.W.6. P.W.2 in the FIR has alleged that Respondent Ashok Dinkar Kale had inflicted a blow with knife on P.W.6 and his son Suresh Kale, who was a juvenile at the time of incident, assaulted him with fist blows and kick blows and, on the other hand, P.W.6, in his initial statement which was recorded on 9/10/2008, stated that Suresh had assaulted him with knife on his stomach and, later on, in his supplementary statement which was recorded on 16/10/2008, he mentioned for the first time that the Respondent Ashok Dinkar Kale had assaulted him. He also admitted that before the supplementary statement was recorded, the FIR which was registered at the instance of P.W.2 was shown by the police to him. Trial Court observed that this was a material discrepancy which showed that P.W. 6 had tried to implicate Ashok Dinkar Kale for the assault with knife, though in his first statement he had stated that Suresh Ashok Kale had given that blow with knife. Trial Court further observed that the injury which was caused to P.W.6 was a superficial injury. This observation was made after going through the evidence of doctor and after perusing the medical certificate. The learned Magistrate, therefore, did not rely on the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.6 and acquitted the accused. 4 (APPLN-1300.11) 7. In our view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view and while recording the said finding, Trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence on record, the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.6 as also the other material which is on record. It is a settled position in law that in an appeal against acquittal this Court is not expected to substitute its own view to the plausible view taken by the Trial Court. No case, therefore, in our view, is made out for grant of leave. Leave is refused. Appeal is dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) 5 (APPLN-1300.11)