( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1291 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1290 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Dhammapal Baburao Kamble & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. R.R. Imale, advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. These are applications for condonation of delay in filing application for leave to appeal and for grant of leave to appeal, respectively. 2. By the impugned judgement and order in Sessions Case No. 25/2009, the respondents No. 1 to 4 came to be acquitted for offence punishable under section 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 3. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the ( 2 ) respondents. 4. For the reasons stated in the application No. 1291/2010 is allowed. 5. It is argued by learned APP that though there is direct evidence of the injured complainant to prove the incident which occurred on 19th March, 2008, yet, the trial Court discarded such evidence without much reason. He would submit that the acquittal of the respondents is not founded on well reasoned grounds. 6. It appears that the respondent No. 1 also lodged a counter complaint and another special case No. 6/2008 was pending in the Sessions Court against the original complainant i.e. injured. It is important to notice that the respondent No. 1 also was medically examined after the alleged incident dated 19th March, 2008 and there were abrasion injuries found on his left shoulder. The prosecution witnesses did not explain the injuries which were found on the person of the respondent No. 1. The trial Court noticed that though the complainant alleged that he was assaulted by means of stones and sticks, yet, the nature of injuries shown in the medico- legal certificate did not corroborate the story. A knife was ( 3 ) recovered after nine (9) days vide panchanama dt. 28-03-2008 (Exh-25). The version of the complainant and the other eye witnesses did not match each other and, therefore, benefit of reasonable doubt was extended to the respondents. The appeal cannot be entertained only because some other view is possible from the same evidence. Having regard to the nature of evidence tendered by the prosecution, existence of the counter case against the complainant and others and the attending circumstances, leave to appeal is refused. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The appeal be deemed as dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln1291-1290-10