1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2195 OF 2004 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST. NO. OF 2005 Gokul Siddheshwar Chavan ...Applicant Appellant (Orig. complainant) VERSUS Bajirao Abaji Raut (Parit) & anr. ...Respondents ..... Shri V.M.Humbe, advocate for the applicant Shri V.G.Mete, advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 absent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 8th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1 The applicant (original complainant) has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhoom on 22.7.2004 in Regular Criminal Case No. 71 of 1999 acquitting the respondents i.e. original accused from the charges levelled against them under Sections 324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 2 I have gone through the judgment of acquittal dated 22.7.2004 with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant. It appears that the applicant herein filed the private complaint and the respondents I.e. Original accused faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the said complaint. 3 The applicant (original complainant) examined three witnesses i.e. complainant himself, witness Bhimrao Satpute and Medical Officer Rajabhau Galande to substantiate the charges levelled against the respondent. However, it appears that the alleged eye witness Bhimrao Satpute nowhere stated in his deposition that on which part of the body of the complainant the accused persons allegedly assaulted him and on which part of the body the complainant sustained the injuries. It also appears that the complainant has not examined another independent witness namely Shrimant Bodake for the reasons best known to the applicant (complainant) and no reason has been assigned by the complainant for his non- examination. It further appears that the complainant had lodged report to the police against the accused, but did not make any attempt to bring the said report on record, which consequently hampered the case of the complainant. It also appears that in the cross-examination it was asked to the complainant that he assaulted the accused in the land of the accused, which indicates that another incident had taken place in the land of the accused, but it is nobody's case that one after another the incidents had 3 taken place, and therefore, suspicion was raised in respect of the occurrence of the incident in question. 4 Accordingly, after scrutinizing and assessing the evidence, learned Trial Judge arrived to the conclusion that the complainant has not adduced cogent and reliable evidence, and therefore, he has not proved the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and ultimately learned Trial Judge gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the offences with which they were charged, and apparently the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge is the possible view after appreciating the evidence. 5 Besides that, it also appears that there is no perversity in the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Judge while acquitting the respondents (original accused) by the judgment and order in question, and therefore, this is not a fit case to grant leave to the applicant (complainant) to file appeal against the said judgment and order of acquittal. 6 In the result, present application is sans merit, and therefore, same stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap2195.04