1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4178 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Jagannath Tulshiram Gosavi ..RESPONDENT ......... Mrs. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for the applicant. Mr. N.S. Patil holding for Mr.Deshmukh, advocate for respondent no.1. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 14 th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Mr. N.S. Patil holding for Mr. Deshmukh seeks adjournment. Request is rejected. 2. Having considered the judgments of the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shevgaon in R.T.C. No.117/2003 and that of the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.130/2006, it transpires that the respondent was convicted for the offences under Section 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and separate sentences were awarded to him on both the counts. The Medical evidence tendered by P.W.4-Dr.Ahsan Zuberi prima facie corroborated the injury certificate (Exh.28). It appears that P.W. 1- Dnyaneshwar (complainant) corroborated the F.I.R. There is no 2 dispute about the fact that the P.W. Dnyaneshwar was working as public servant at the relevant time. It appears that he was executing work assigned to him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have acquitted the respondent for the reason that the prosecution has failed to examine the witness by name Shri.Changdeo Kopanar. Considering the contradictory judgments of the Court below and the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there appears sufficient ground to grant the request for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Court of Sessions. 3. In the result, the application is allowed and leave to appeal is granted. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri4178.07