1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.238/2010 (State of Maharashtra .vs. Valeshwar Rajaram Kurzekar ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mrs. K.S. Joshi, APP for the Applicant. .......... CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010 Heard. By the present application, the applicant/State of Maharashtra has sought the leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.7.2009 recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 80/2008. The respondent sole accused in the said case was prosecuted for attempting to murder of injured Suryabhan Lanjwar (PW4) and injured Watu Hatwar (PW1) on 25.8.2008 at about 10 a.m. at mouza Borgaon (Bz) by driving his autorickshaw bearing registration No. MH-36-3587 and dashing the injured and causing them injuries. The perusal of the judgment delivered by the 2 trial Court reveals that out of the three material witnesses examined, first informant PW3 eye-witness Rajkumar Hatwar had not supported the prosecution case. The same reveals that though the prosecution upon the evidence of injured PW4 and PW1 had come to the conclusion that during the incident both the injured had sustained injuries as established through the evidence of Dr. Amrapali Mate (PW6), still the respondent was not guilty for the offence charged with. The trial Court had come to such a conclusion in view of the evidence of the injured witnesses having revealed that PW4 has started quarrel with the respondent on the count of payment of fare of the fertilizer carried through his rickshaw a day prior to the incident and same has assumed nasty shape and crowd of 80-90 persons had gathered at the spot. It had also come to the conclusion that during the said quarrel damage was caused to the rickshaw and the events then occurred were sufficient to raise reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent regarding existence of danger to his life and limb and so also to his rickshaw. Having regard to the same, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that defence of the respondent was not ruled out that due to occurring of such event he was required to drive away his rickshaw and in the said process injured has sustained the injuries. The trial Court thus has come to the conclusion that the respondent while driving the rickshaw was not having the intention of killing any person in the crowd and has driven the same for defending himself and his property. 3 Careful perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that such a view taken by the learned trial Court for not accepting the prosecution evidence establishing guilt of the accused cannot be faulted. In our considered view, the view taken by the trial Court is a probable one. Therefore, this is not a fit case in which this court should interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In view of above, we find no ground to grant leave to appeal against acquittal. Hence the application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai