1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.50 of 2008 (Sau. Laxmibai Pralhad Kamble v. Balu @ Jaiprakash Bhikaji Sarkate and three others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri O.Y. Kashid, Advocate for Applicant. Shri P.D. Kothari, APP for State. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 12th January, 2009 This revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial First Class, Malegaon, District Washim, in Regular Criminal Case No.85 of 2006, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the non- applicant Nos.1 to 3 of offences punishable under Sections 452. 324. 504. and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. The learned counsel for the applicant may be right in contending that the learned Magistrate had used an improper expression in Marathi for the word 'intention' appearing in Section 34 of the Penal Code. He should have used the word 'hetu' rather than 'uddesh', which may correspond to motive. Since writing of judgments in Marathi has commenced of late, some time would have to be allowed for using proper 2 expression, which correspondence to terms in English. However, this does not show that the learned Magistrate was considering 'motive' instead of 'intention' while appreciating evidence. The learned Magistrate had, upon considering the evidence of eye-witnesses, found that they had come with a story of incident, which was different than they had stated before the police. They had not stated before the police that anybody was whipped or beaten with a shoe. The learned Magistrate also found that the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer were not examined in the case. The learned Magistrate observed that there was no evidence that the complainant was humiliated or intimidated. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted about failure to appreciate the evidence in respect of offence of trespass punishable under Section 452 of the Penal Code. After having found that the witnesses were not reliable on the major part of the incident, the learned Magistrate was not expected to add one more sentence to show that even trespass was not proved. Therefore, since there is nothing perverse or improper in the conclusions drawn by the learned Magistrate, the revision is dismissed. JUDGE pdl