1 apeal 792-10 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 792 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus Manubhai Purshottam Patel .. Respondents and another Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for the State CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25th January, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard Mrs. Bhosale, APP for the Appellant - State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Mumbai in Criminal Case NO. 507/P/94. There was delay in preferring this appeal. The delay was condoned and the appeal came up for hearing on admission. 3. The accused were initially prosecuted under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. The charge under section 324 I.P.C. held not proved. By the impugned order all four accused were convicted for committing offence punishable under section 323 read with 34 IPC i.e. voluntarily causing hurt, and sentenced as under: 2 apeal 792-10 “ii. Instead of sentencing the accused for punishment at once, they are directed to be released after executing bond in tune of Rs.3,00.- each on probation for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year under section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. (iii) In the event of breach of the bond during the period of probation, the accused shall be called upon to receive the punishment for the offence after hearing afresh on the quantum of sentence in addition to statutory actions for the breach of the bond.” 4. By this appeal the prosecution urged for enhancement of sentence mentioned above for conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. since the injuries were sustained by the complainant and others are serious and certain Hockey Sticks, Iron bars were used as weapon by these accused who are respondents in this appeal. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment. The trial Court has discussed each and every point and relevant evidence adduced by the prosecution. Fair opportunity was given to both the sides during the trial. Necessary emphasis is also given to the strained relations between the parties because of the dispute over some construction. There was also a case registered against the complainant under Section 385 read with 114 I.P.C. for extortion, on a complaint of accused no.1. The said case came to be withdrawn on 3.8.99. 3 apeal 792-10 6. The present case is arising out of the incident of 1994 which came to be decided recently on 6.2.2010. The Trial Court, after proper evaluation of the evidence, held the accused guilty under section 323 of I.P.C. Despite the previous enmity and material discrepancies found and noticed, at this stage, the only material available is the copy of the impugned judgment and order. It is seen that the complainant- Vaidya had lodged F.I.R. and at that time he was not aware of the names of the assailants and therefore their names have not been recorded in the FIR. The record reveals that he had admitted that there were 15/20 persons present at the spot and he was not aware how many persons pelted stones and the incident had gone for five minutes. The trial Court also held that there is no recovery of weapon or iron bar and the evidence adduced in that behalf is not properly proved. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court are duly supported by sound reasons. No case is made out. 7. Appeal stands dismissed. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )