1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.137 OF 2009 Bhausaheb S/o.Lahanu Wagh, APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.N.R.Bhavar, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for State. Mr.S.S.Deve, learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 4 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 01/12/2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard advocate for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for first respondent, and learned advocate appearing for respondent no.2 to 4 original accused. 2. By this revision application, the applicant/original complainant has challenged the order of acquittal in RCC No.51/2004. By the judgment and order dated 13/11/2008, learned J.M.F.C. Kopargaon has acquitted these respondent no.2 to 4 from the said criminal case for an offence punishable u/s. 326, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, and for an offence punishable u/s. 37(1) r/w. 135 of The Bombay Police Act. 2 This judgment of acquittal is impugned in this revision application. Considering the small issue involved, the revision petition is finally heard at the stage of admission. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar and the limited scope u/s. 401 of The Cr.P.C., with the assistance of learned advocate appearing for the revision applicant as well as for respondent no.2 to 4, perused the impugned judgment subject matter of the revision application. In para no.7 of the judgment, the fact is in subsistence as to how and where the incidence has occurred is narrated by the learned trial judge wherein as per the facts stated in the complaint Exh.35, the incident took place in front of the house of complainant, the revision applicant. At that time, it is alleged that the respondent no.2 to 4 with the help of iron rods entered there and hit on the forehead of the complainant and thus the complainant/revision applicant sustained grevious injury. 4. Considering the facts discussed by the Trial Judge in para no.5 of the judgment, it is alleged that this blow was given by accused no.1 and 2/the respondent no.2 and 3, but the oral evidence of the complainant is silent on that point. As against this, it is discussed in the said para that the blow was given by applicant no.3 with the help of rod in his hand, but this fact is appeared to be not stated in the complaint, which is an omission. Apart from it, the witness who is father of the complainant has stated that the complainant has sustained bleeding injury when he had gone to the temple and when 3 he returned back, he was informed about the injuries sustained by his son/present applicant. The next star witness is wife of the complainant. In the first place, she has supported the narration given by the complainant as to how he sustained injuries, but in the cross examination, she has admitted that she is giving the evidence in the Court as stated by her husband, the complainant. 5. On reading this material part from the judgment, the fact is clear that the facts stated in the complaint are not supported fully by the complainant and by the witnesses of the complainant which is thoroughly and minutely discussed by the Trial Judge in para no.4 to 8 of the judgment. On reading these facts discussed in the judgment of the Trial Court, it can not be said that the material before the Trial Court was not properly considered by him and he came to the wrong conclusion. Thus it can not be said that the observation of the Trial Court are perverse and require interference. 6. Apart from the facts discussed in above referred paragraphs, the next point arises whether any law point is involved in this revision which was placed before the Trial Judge, but was not properly considered by the Trial Judge. It is tried to urge that the medical evidence by way of medical certificate produced on record was not properly considered by the trial judge. It is to be noted that the medical certificate produced before the Trial Court was exhibited as admitted by the respondents. To exhibit the medical certificate will prove the injuries found on the person examined by the Medical 4 Officer, but the medical certificate will not speak for who is the author of these injuries. To decide who is the author of these injuries/ultimately responsible for these injuries will depend upon the oral evidence given to that effect during the course of trial either by the victim or by the witnesses who are the eye witnesses. For the facts stated in para no.4 to 8 of the judgment of the trial court, it can not be said that it is positively established that respondent no.2 to 4 are the authors of these injuries. In the premise, in this revision application neither any law point is involved not there is any perversity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court on appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court. In the premise, the revision application sans any merit and liable to be rejected in limine. Accordingly the revision application stands dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/DEC 2009/cri.rev.137-09