1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.220 OF 2006 Premashri d/o Madhukarrao Dandekar - PETITIONER (Orig. Complainant) VERSUS 1) Keshav s/o Govindrao Deshmane and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate holding for Mr.Vijay Sharma,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.R.R.Chandak, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for Resp.No.2-State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) The acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani for the offence under Sections 324, 294, 504 r/w Section 34 of 2 IPC in R.C.C.No.278 of 2003 by order dated 28th March, 2006 is assailed by the complainant/petitioner on the ground that the observations of the learned Judge are perverse, contrary to the record and need interference. 3) With the assistance of the counsel, I have perused the order under challenge. The allegations are, the accused tried to bite the victim – Premashri Madhukarrao Dandekar, or tried to confine her. However, the complainant herself did not adhere to this aspect as according to her, the accused/respondent no.1 rushed to her, caught hold her hairs and assaulted her with tyre belt, It could not be digested that the accused could have bitten the complainant. The evidence did not support about the complainant’s assertion of the injuries. Witness Shrihari Pawar could not be believed. The Court found that he is the employee of the complainant, drawing monthly salary of Rs.1,000/-. His version was more leaning to support the complainant than to stake to the correct position. 3 4) The observation of the learned Judge, acquitting the accused/Respondent No.1. does not require any interference. It is not indicating any infraction of legal position, Criminal Revision dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv220.06