1 cri.appljn.3751-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3751 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Rambahadur Narbahadur Bisht ..Respondent Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP for the Applicant. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 13th January, 2011 P.C. We have heard Mr. Shinde, the learned A.P.P. This application has been moved by the State of Maharashtra for seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal passed under Sections 302 and 323 of I.P.C., by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on 31st December, 2009. 2 cri.appljn.3751-10 2. After hearing the learned A.P.P., notice was issued to the respondent accused only in respect of the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. The said notice could not be served during the last about four months. 3. With the assistance of Mr. Shinde, we have gone through the reasoning set out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. The prosecution had examined two eye witnesses and on considering the said evidence of the eye witnesses as well as medical evidence the trial Court held that considering the age of the injury Nos.5 and 6 mentioned on column 17 of the post martem report it could not be said that the accused is the author of those injuries. The injury on the head of the deceased was not grievous nature and was not a cause for death of the deceased. The C.A., report placed before the trial Court indicated that the deceased had consumed alcohol and on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Priyanka Deshmukh the trial Court observed that there was a quarrel going on between the accused and the deceased and that the deceased was giving kicks to the accused. The deceased had teeth bite on the chest of the accused and in that incident the accused had beaten the deceased and that is 3 cri.appljn.3751-10 the injury which was attributed to the accused. In any case the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C., is compoundable. 5. Hence we do not find any case to grant leave under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., against acquittal under Section 323 of I.P.C. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the application is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)