1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.994 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .Applicant V/s. Subhash Krishna Kamble & anr. .Respondents Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the Applicant - State None for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondents recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C., Tasgaon, District Sangli for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned magistrate found that there was absolutely no evidence about any abuses or 2 insult being hurled at the Complainant's party. He next found that the evidence about intimidation was discrepant in as much as PW-1 Sham Shankar Kamble and PW-2 Shankar Babu Kamble used different words to convey as to how they were threatened. The FIR merely mentioned that they were threatened. As far as Section 325 is concerned, the medical report negatives any grievous hurt having been caused to any of the victims. The injuries caused to the victims as certified by the Doctor are abrasions or contused lacerated wound which are of simple in nature. PW-2 Shankar had stated that he was assaulted by Suresh by a knife. There is no injury by the knife, since he is shown to have been suffered only three abrasions. The learned magistrate also found that on the morning of the incident there was some incident in which PWs 1 to 3 were alleged to have fallen on stones. The witnesses had admitted that they have been arrested by Tasgaon Police Station though the 3 suggestion about fall on stone was denied. There would be no reason for arresting the prosecution witnesses on the incidental day, if they were not involved in any altercation with the accused persons. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses which are inconsistent with the story of assault as given, as also the fact that there is no independent witness to corroborate the story though such witnesses were available, it cannot be said that the learned magistrate erred in concluding that offences were not proved. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)