1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO....../2009 in CRI.APPLICATGION NO. 2643/2009 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. ..../2009 (Sou Sita w/o Hiraman Choudhary vs. laxman Bisan Nagpure and others ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Ms. M S Kapse, Adv. for applicant Mr S L Kotwal, Adv.for Respondents *** C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 06 th OCTOBER ,2009. 1. Learned Advocate for the respondents states that cost of Rs. 300/- is already received. The delay has already been condoned by this Court vide order dated 22nd September, 2009. 2. Heard respective counsel and perused judgment and order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kuhi on 17.4.2009 in Summary Criminal Case No.2379/2008. It does appear from the impugned judgment that the complainant Mrs Sita Chaudhary lodged a complaint on 4.12.2009 after delay of 24 hours in respect of the incident, which alleged to have occurred on 3.12.2009 between 9.00 a.m. and 10.a.m. It is also to be noted that the learned trial Judge considered the unexplained delay in lodging FIR as also the evidence of the complainant, who in her deposition stated that the injuries has resulted accidentally ( as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the judgment ) due to bullocks’ horns, tearing her blouse. There was no word against any of the accused that any of them were responsible or liable for causing injury. Under these circumstances, the order of acquittal was passed. I think, there was every reason to believe that the complainant had received accidental injury. No intentional injury was inflicted upon her by any 2 of the accused. I do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. No prima facie case is made out to entertain Appeal. Hence leave is refused. Application is rejected. Consequently, Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE. sahare