[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLN.NO.211 OF 2008 Balu Babu Deokate ..Applicant Vs. Shivaji Tatyaba Keskar and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr. Pankaj Deokar i/b Mr.Rahul S. Kate advocate for applicant Mr.Milind Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-orignal complainant and the learned advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 4-original accused nos.1 to 4. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal of the Respondents under Sections 323 an 326 r.w. 34 of IPC dated 22.6.2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Baramati in Cri.Appeal No. 18 of 2004, the applicant has preferred this revision. [-2-] 3. The complainant-Balu Deokate has been examined as PW 1. P.W.2 Kalpana Deokate is daughter in law of the complainant. PW 3 Jogubai is the wife of the complainant and mother in law of PW 2 Kalpana. The prosecution case is that the accused and PWs. 1 to 3 are closely related and their lands are adjoining to one other. There was common bandh between their lands. There was some dispute in relation to the said land. It is the case of the complainant that on 10.5.2002 all the respondents assaulted the complainant as well as PWs 2 and 3. 4. As far as PW 1 Balu Deokate is concerned, Dr.Suryawanshi has stated that she has not noticed any visible injuries on the person of the complainant. As far as PW 2 Kalpana is concerned, there is no injury certificate on record. As far as PW 3 Jogubai is concerned, it is the prosecution case that she has suffered fracture of the hand, however, the prosecution has not produced on record any certificate to substantiate this contention that PW 3 Jogubai sustained a fracture injury of the left hand. [-3-] 5. In order to prove the prosecution case, three eye witnesses have been examined i.e. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. Evidence of all these three witnesses is discrepant so also the evidence of complainant PW 1 Balu and his complaint are discrepant. 6. PWs. 1 and 3 state that the incident had taken place on 10.5.2000 at about 8 p.m. whereas the evidence of PW 2 who is daughter in law of P.Ws. 1 and 3 shows that the incident took place at noon time. Thus, it is seen that there is major discrepancy regarding time of the incident. Besides this, there is also discrepancy as to where the witnesses were at the time of the incident. According to PW 3 she was sitting in the house along with PWs. 1 and 2 and at that time, Yogesh informed them that the accused were assaulting her son Chagan, however, PW 2 who is daughter-in-law of PWs 1 and 3, has stated that she along with PWs 1 and 3 were standing in front of the hotel, at that time, Sachin came and informed them about the incident. Hence, all of them went to the spot. 7. There is also discrepancy between the evidence of the witnesses and the medical evidence. The [-4-] evidence of PW 1 complainant and PW 3 Jagubai shows that accused Shivaji gave stick blow on the left hand of PW 3 Jogubai, thereby PW 3 sustained single injury on her left hand. However, the evidence of Dr.PW 4 Suryawanshi shows that there were two injuries on Jogubai, one injury was on the hand and other one was on the head. No explanation was given as to how the second injury was sustained by PW 3. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration and thereafter he has acquitted the respondents, hence, I find the impugned judgment and order is correct, legal and proper, hence, no interference is called for. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]