(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1332 OF 2006. The State of Maharashtra. ...Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Ganpat Shankar Bhale & 3 Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Rajesh More, APP for Applicant. Mr. Sandeep Kurne, Adv.for Respondents. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicant- State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgement and order dated 6th December 2005, passed by the learded J.M.F.C., Sangola in Regular Criminal Case No.57/1999. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents - original accused nos.1 to 4 of the offences under section 325, 323, 504 & 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that PW.1 - Kantabai, PW.2- Jalindar were assaulted by the accused (2) persons with sticks. 3. I have heard the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Advocate for the respndents-accused. I have perused the judgement and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence produced by the learned A.P.P. 4. So far as Jalindar is concerned, on examination, the doctor found that all the injuries were simple injuries. So far as Kantabai is concerned, except injury no.1, the doctor had stated that the other injuries were simple in nature. According to the prosecution on examination injury no.1 was suspected to be a fracture of right hand. It is the prosecution case that thereafter, x-ray was taken out and fracture was detected. However, no x-ray has been produced nor the doctor or X-Ray technician, who took out the X-Ray has been examined. Thus, no reliable material has been brought on record to show that Kantabai sustained fracture to her hand. 5. So far as recovery is concerned, the panchas (3) have not supported the prosecution. Moreover, PW.2 Jalindar has stated that the accused assaulted him with stick. However he has not stated so in his statement before the police. Thus, it is seen that there is an omission which affects the prosection case regarding assault by the accused. So far as motive is concerned, there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW.1-Kantabai and PW.2-Jalindar. This fact also raises doubt in the mind. 6. The learned Magistrate has taken into consideration all the above aspects as well as other aspects and thereafter, he has acquitted the respondents - accused. 7. Looking to the evidence on record,I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (4) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)