1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2007 (Balu s/o Zumbar Kachare vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. A.M.Ghodke, Adv., absent. Mrs.B.R.Khekale, APP for respondent/State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 6/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Counsel for the applicant absent. 2. Acquittal in RTC No.113/2004, recorded on 8.6.2007, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat, for the offense under Section 324, 223, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is subject of criticism. 3. Having gone through the judgment and, particularly, the reasons assigned to the points evaluated by the learned Judge, I find that PW No.5 has stated himself to be eye witness, however, he hesitatingly, at the end of his testimony, has to accept that he was close relation of the complainant. The learned Judge observed, PW 5 was improving his statements to the cause of the 2 complainant. 4. The medical certificate, according to the prosecution, showed that the complainant was severely injured at the hands of the accused, however, it is also established that the parties had civil disputes and, consequently, the incident or the sufferance of injury is found by the learned Judge to be double edged weapon. 5. It is a matter of record, the investigator did not make himself available. The complainant, in the evidence before the Court, stated that the accused put mud in his mouth to prevent him from shouting. He spitted out the mud and thereafter shouted, however, these aspects, having been confronted to the FIR, are missing. The explanation, he felt giddy and, thereafter, he did not state before the Police, could not be accepted. 6. The complainant asserts that, at the time of incident there were few workers working nearby who had intervened. If this is so, the complainant should have named such labourers or should have made efforts to examine them. No such exercise is carried. PW No.3 is father of the complainant who allegedly was working at nearby D.P. which, in fact, was found to be at a distance of 2 kms. from the scene of incident. It is admitted by the father that the complainant went from North side 3 while he went for his work from South side of Jogeshwarwadi and clearly it was impossible for PW No.3 to have witnessed the incident of so called brutal attack by the accused. 7. The findings recorded by the learned Judge, based on the evidence adduced, created doubt for him to accede to what the prosecution accelerated. 8. The observations of the learned Judge, on analysis of the evidence, cannot be said to be perverse, requiring any interference. No question of law is involved in the matter. Revision dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/181-07crra