CR.APPEAL NO.258/1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.258 OF 1992 Date of decision:17/8/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.H.JOSHI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/258-92cr.a CR.APPEAL NO.258/1992 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.258 OF 1992 The State of Maharashtra. ...APPELLANT (Ori.Complainant) VERSUS 1. Kishan Kondiba Puyed, Age 30 yrs., occu.student, r/o Kamtha (Kd) Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 2. Kondiba w/o Narayan Puyed, aged 45 yrs., occu. Agri., and service in the Bank, r/o as above. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.accused) ... Mr.N.R.Shaikh, Adv., APP for appellant State. Mr. V.S.Kadam, Adv.,ho/f Mr.B.N.Patil, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Date: AUGUST 17th, 2011 *** ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per:Justice A.H.Joshi) 1. Criminal Application No.149/1993 for condonation of delay is allowed. CR.APPEAL NO.258/1992 3 2. This is a State appeal against acquittal. 3. Two accused persons were charged for commission of offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 447, and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial resulted in acquittal. 3. Perusal of judgment discloses that the order of acquittal was propelled due to reasons, namely, (i) The injuries on the person of the accused were not explained. (ii) The genesis of the offense was not proved. (iii) Admittedly, by all prosecution witnesses, scuffle was already going on between the parties. 4. In the premises noted above, as we have seen from the record, any other view than the one arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is not possible. CR.APPEAL NO.258/1992 4 5. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) ... AGP/258-92cr.a