appln179-11.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 179 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Raju Amitbhai Sundrani .. Respondent Mr. Y. S. Shinde for the applicant-State CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard learned APP for the applicant State. Perused the impugned judgment, copies of the evidence and other documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 2. The accused-respondent was tried for the offences punishable under section 509, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 406/PW/2008 and after trial he was acquitted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali. The prosecution seeks leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused used to blow whistle and pass remarks whenever Manisha- Sister of the complainant would be coming out from her house. On 2/3/2011, at about 15.30 hours also, when she came out to throw waste material in dustbin, the accused blew whistle and made some remarks. This resulted in quarrel. The accused abused and 1 appln179-11.sxw assaulted the complainant and caused injuries to him with chopper. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, complainant himself, his mother and sister and the medical officer and the investigating officer were examined as prosecution witnesses. Medical officer proved that there were fresh abrasions on the forehead, nose, right side face, right neck of Vipul (complainant) and that those injures could be caused with sharp weapon 5. Arrest Panchanama of the accused reveals that there were several injuries of same nature on his person also at the time of his arrest and he was also given medical treatment. The learned trial court acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt on the ground that even though number of independent eye witnesses were present at the time of incident, none of them was examined. All the three witnesses about the incident were family members. As the accused as well as Vipul, both had suffered similar injuries and as injuries on the person of the accused were not explained by the prosecution and as no independent eye witnesses examined, benefit of doubt was given to the accused. 6. It is settled position of law that when two different views are reasonably possible, the appellate Court will not interfere with the view taken by the Trial Court while passing the order of acquittal. In the given circumstances, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court was not reasonably possible. Therefore, I see no valid 2 appln179-11.sxw reason to grant leave to prefer appeal as it will not serve any purpose. 7. Therefore, leave to prefer appeal against acquittal is hereby refused. The application stands rejected. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 3