1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.424 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.424 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.424 OF 2007 inin in CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. APPEAL NO. OF OF OF 2007 2007 2007 The The The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant State of Maharashtra .. Applicant State of Maharashtra .. Applicant vs vs vs Kapursing Kapursing Kapursing Bhimsing Zalte & 8 ors.. Respondents Bhimsing Zalte & 8 ors.. Respondents Bhimsing Zalte & 8 ors.. Respondents Ms.A.T.Zaveri Ms.A.T.Zaveri Ms.A.T.Zaveri APP for Applicant APP for Applicant APP for Applicant None None None for Respondents for Respondents for Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.S.Mohite, J R.S.Mohite, J R.S.Mohite, J DATED: DATED: DATED: 10th March, 2008 10th March, 2008 10th March, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. Heard the APP and perused the impugned Judgment Heard the APP and perused the impugned Judgment Heard the APP and perused the impugned Judgment and and and Order. Order. Order. 2.2.2. The Court has given detailed reasons for The Court has given detailed reasons for The Court has given detailed reasons for acquitting acquitting acquitting the accused persons and the reasoning of the accused persons and the reasoning of the accused persons and the reasoning of the the the Courts cannot be said to be perverse. As Courts cannot be said to be perverse. As Courts cannot be said to be perverse. As observed observed observed by the trial Court, there is gross by the trial Court, there is gross by the trial Court, there is gross discrepency discrepency discrepency about the words alleged to have been about the words alleged to have been about the words alleged to have been 2 uttered uttered uttered by the accused. In the complaint, the by the accused. In the complaint, the by the accused. In the complaint, the offensive offensive offensive words which would constitute an offence words which would constitute an offence words which would constitute an offence under under under the Atrocities Act are said to be uttered by the Atrocities Act are said to be uttered by the Atrocities Act are said to be uttered by the the the accused no.1. However, at the time of accused no.1. However, at the time of accused no.1. However, at the time of deposition, deposition, deposition, various various various witnesses attributed these words witnesses attributed these words witnesses attributed these words toto to different accused. The injuries found on four different accused. The injuries found on four different accused. The injuries found on four persons persons persons namely Sadashiv, Pintya and Ravindra are namely Sadashiv, Pintya and Ravindra are namely Sadashiv, Pintya and Ravindra are very very very minor and in the nature of tenderness in some minor and in the nature of tenderness in some minor and in the nature of tenderness in some areas areas areas of the body. As observed by the Court, these of the body. As observed by the Court, these of the body. As observed by the Court, these are are are not corroborated by the oral testimony of the not corroborated by the oral testimony of the not corroborated by the oral testimony of the witnesses. witnesses. witnesses. X-ray was not taken. In my view, not a X-ray was not taken. In my view, not a X-ray was not taken. In my view, not a fit fit fit case for an appeal against acquittal. Hence, case for an appeal against acquittal. Hence, case for an appeal against acquittal. Hence, leave leave leave is refused. Consequently, appeal papers to be is refused. Consequently, appeal papers to be is refused. Consequently, appeal papers to be filed. filed. filed. ( R.S.Mohite, J ) R.S.Mohite, J ) R.S.Mohite, J ) 3