( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Drupatrao s/o. Ramrao Khillare & ors. .. Respondents Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the appellant. Shri S.S. Rathi, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 08.03.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against order of acquittal of the respondents of offences punishable under section 323 and 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2003, decided on 21.02.2005. 2. The facts giving rise to file appeal may be stated as under :- ( 2 ) . On 07.04.2001 P.W.1-Jagdish lodged complaint that on 06.04.2001 at about 4.00 p.m. his brother P.W.3-Satish informed that some boys of Baudhwada had come to the place, where sugarcane cutting was going on and they were taking away the sugarcane. But he did not allow them. Therefore, these boys abused and intimated him. Thereafter, when the complainant P.W.1-Jagdish along with P.W.3-Satish were proceeding to the field where work was going on, the respondents restrained them. At that time respondent No.2- Damu pulled his leg and fell him down. Respondent No.1- Navnath pelted stone which hit the complainant P.W.1-Jagdish near his right eye lid causing injury. P.W.3-Satish was given kicks by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Thereafter, it is stated that at about 7.00 p.m. again there was threat of killing given to them. So complaint was lodged and offence was registered for offences punishable under sections 324, 341, 323, 506 all read with section 34 of the I.P.C. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jintur, on 01.12.2003, while deciding R.C.C. No. 136 of 2001, convicted the present respondents of offences punishable ( 3 ) under sections 324, 341, 323, 506 all read with section 34 of the I.P.C. However, the learned Ist Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2003, on 21.02.2005, acquitted the respondents of offences punishable under section 323 and 324 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. 4. In this case as stated earlier only original accused No.1 Navnath said to have pleted stone which hit complainant Jagdish near his right eye lid. The size of the stone is not brought on record. The advocates for both sides have taken me through the record so also judgments of both the Courts. The medical certificate at Exh.30 shows that Jagdish had two injuries. Both were abrasions on left palm ½ x ½ cms. and another abrasion of 1 x ½ cm on right lower eye lid. There was nothing on record to show that the stone used was likely to cause death, if used as weapon of offence, within the meaning of section 324 of the I.P.C. 5. It is also stated that the respondents who were accused Nos. 3 and 4 have beaten P.W.3-Satish, but there was no injury to P.W.3-Satish. So, merely there is oral word ( 4 ) regarding act attributed to the respondents. Evidence is discussed in detail by the Additional Sessions Judge. 6. For the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in my opinion, the view taken is reasonable. Therefore, this is not fit case where any discretion should be used to interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Court. Hence, leave to file appeal is rejected. As the leave to file appeal is rejected, the Criminal Appeal does not survive. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/MAR10/crap467.05