..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.427 OF 2006 Pratibha Prabhakar Godbole. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.M.R.Deshpande, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. DATED : 27th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 22.9.2005 the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Solapur acquitted the respondent Nos.2 & 3 i.e. original accused Nos.1 & 2 in R.C.C. No.6 of 1994. By the said judgment and order, respondent Nos.2 & 3 came to be acquitted under Sections 324, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal, the applicant original complainant has preferred this Revision. 3. The case of the complainant is that her ..(2).. house is adjacent to the house of her brother-in-law Waman. The respondents were the tenants of Waman. There was dispute regarding the use of common gate by tenants and landlords. On 17.11.1993 at about 12 noon the maid-servant of the complainant entered the premises through main gate. At that time, accused No.2 began to abuse her. At that time, accused No.1 brought a lock from her house and hit it on the head of the complainant. The complainant (PW-1) has stated this fact in her evidence. Though it is the prosecution case that the lock was seized during investigation, during the trial the said lock was not produced. The evidence of PW-4 Dr.Ashok shows that the complainant sustained simple injuries. Dr.Ashok admitted that such type of injuries can be caused by falling of a person on slippery surface. 4. The learned Magistrate has rightly considered all the facts and thereafter acquitted the accused. It is seen that the incident in the present case occurred on 17.11.1993 i.e. almost 15 years back. The injury was simple in nature. There is no reliable evidence to show that a lock ..(3).. was used to assault the complainant. 5. Looking to the above facts, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for. Hence, Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)