1 APPLN 1242 OF 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1242 OF 2011 Haridas Vithoba Shinde .. Applicant. -versus The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Mr.A. Q. Ansari, for the applicant. Mrs. V. R. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 2nd December, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondent, by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, reversing the conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koregaon. The applicant and the accused are brothers whose fields had been partitioned. Even according to applicant’s evidence the way to the field of accused was from by the stream flowing in the land of complainant. However, the incidental day, complainant, after ploughing his land was passing through the land of accused; by carrying ploughing, instruments and had scattered sticks of Babul tree to prevent the accused from using the way. The complainant stated that the quarrel lasted for half an hour to one hour. 2 APPLN 1242 OF 2011 2. The complainant stated in para 9 of his deposition that the accused gave only one blow to him by means of iron rod which injured him. His sister Malan is stated to have rescued him, but Malan was not examined before the Court. The medical evidence of P.W.7 Dr.Smita Kasar shows that there were two minor injuries, one contused lascerated wound over left parietal region and another tenderness over back lumber region. The learned Sessions Judge held that the accused could be stated to have acted in exercise of his private defence to property. He also observed that the injuries could have been caused in the altercation which took place between the applicant and the accused. He found the story about respondent hitting applicant unacceptable because Malan who was stated to have rescued the applicant from the clutches of respondent, was not examined for no apparent reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the accused had not at all set up right of private defence to property and in in case, such right did not extend to causing injury of the type inflicted. He relied on the number of judgments to support his contentions. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts below. Since it is the applicant who was trying to pass through the land of the accused, a suggestion to the applicant in the course of cross examination by the accused shows that the accused was trying to stop the applicant from passing through his property 3 APPLN 1242 OF 2011 and damage his crop. It is also clear from the cross examination that Malanbai who according to the complainant was present, was not examined before the Court. It is the case of complainant that only one blow was given by the respondent. In view of this. the view taken by the learned Judge, cannot be said to be perverse or improbable to call for any interference by this Court. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)