( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3238 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Vishnu Kashinath Sanap and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for applicant/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 17.12.2009 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani, in R.C.C. No. 06 of 2008, decided on 10.06.2009, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents of offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for the applicant/ State. She has taken me through the record and proceedings, so also the judgment of the Trial Court. ( 2 ) 3. It is prosecution case that on 03.06.2007 at 6.00 p.m. the complainant was present in his house. At that time the accused/respondents came there and enquired about complainant’s son Datta and asked why Datta had gone to their house in their absence. Thereafter, respondent No.1 Vishnu gave blow with stick on right wrist of the complainant. When complainant’s wife Kausabai intervened, respondent No.2 Datta gave blow on her left hand and wrist. Both complainant and his wife raised hue and cry. Then other person came and rescued. 4. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses. Out of them P.W.1 – complainant Laxman Namdeo Daund and P.W. 5-Kausabai are the material witnesses. Both mainly stated in terms of the complaint. It is noted by the Magistrate that though the prosecution has come with a case that P.W.5- Kausabai was also injured, there was no medical certificate. There was no evidence to show that she was ever sent to hospital. Even P.W.1-Laxman had one injury which was proved by P.W.8-Dr. Shaker examined at Exh.46. He stated that there was punctured wound on the right arm of complainant Laxman. ( 3 ) It was caused by hard and blunt object. According to the doctor, such injury was possible with stick. It was argued before the Trial Court that punctured wound was not possible with stick or hard and blunt object. The witness stated that no dimensions of the wound was given. When asked the doctor said that it was not possible to give measurement of punctured wound. It also appears from statement of the doctor that he is Orthopedic surgeon. He does not appear to be expert in medical jurisprudence. Otherwise he would not have said that the punctured wound would be possible with hard and blunt object. The doctor specifically denied that punctured wound was always possible with pointed weapon. He also said that such injury was possible when the injury is caused vertically or horizontally. The doctor denied that CLW was possible if a person is injured with stick. Considering the reasons given in my opinion the evidence of the doctor is rightly disbelieved. 5. It is also pointed out that there is variance as to when the complaint was lodged, whether the complainant was referred to the hospital by police or he went himself. In para 9 of the judgment there is discussion by the Trial ( 4 ) Court. The Trial Court did not find evidence of P.W.1-Laxman and his wife P.W.5-Kausabai reliable. So far as other witnesses are concerned, they came subsequently and even P.W. 1-Laxman and P.W.5-Kausabai said that other witnesses came subsequently on hearing their noise after assault. The evidence of P.W.3-Datta Daund disclosed that same stick was used by respondent No.1-Vishnu and respondent No.2-Datta. Only one injury was caused to the complainant and there is no evidence of any other injury. The material witnesses i.e. P.W.1-Laxman, P.W.3-Datta and P.W.5-Kausabai, who are respectively father, son and mother, denied that P.W.3-Datta was prosecuted for the offence of outraging modesty of Sunita, wife of respondent No.3. However, at the time of arguments of R.C.C. No. 6 of 2008, copy of judgment in S.C.C. No. 1169 of 2007, was produced at Exh.66, which shows that P.W.3-Datta was put on trial for offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. So, obvious things are denied. The relations between the parties were strained and therefore there was reason for filing false complaint against present respondents. 6. Considering the reasons given by the Trial Court ( 5 ) and on perusal of evidence of various witnesses, in my opinion, the view taken by the Trial Court is possible and reasonable view. 7. Therefore, leave to file appeal against acquittal cannot be granted. Hence, leave to file appeal against acquittal is rejected. The Criminal Application stands dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/DEC09/cra3238.09