IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 2008 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 55 OF 2008 MR. REMEDIOS CRASTO ... Applicant Versus MRS. DOROTHY SIQUEIRA AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar,Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Advocate for the respondent no. 1, 3 and 4. Coram:- U. D. SALVI, J. Date:- 15th December, 2009 P.C. Heard. 2. Perused application and annexures therewith. 3. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against judgment and Order of acquittal dated 24.10.2007 passed by learned CJM, Margao in Criminal Case no. 42/P/97/A lodged under section 323,452, 506(ii) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the respondents/accused and two others. 4. Initially the complaint was lodged against respondents/accused and 2 others. It appears that 2 of them i.e.Camilo Siqueira and Mr. Joseph Colaco were ordered to be discharged and trial proceeded against rest of the respondents/ accused. Briefly speaking the complainant has alleged assault on him with danda and fist blows by the respondents/accused while he was imparting instructions to his students in a tailoring institute at Kareband road Margoa at about 9.00a.m on 28.1.1997. To substantiate his case he examined himself, his wife and one person by PW2 Maria Jones. Medical Officer, PW4 Sanjay Dalvi who happened to examine him after the incident was also examined to adduce corroborative evidence. 5. According to learned Advocate Mr. S. Usgaonkar, for the applicant/complainant the learned trial court failed to consider the entire evidence in depth and proceeded to acquit the accused on perfunctory view of the evidence. Learned Advocate Mr. D. Shirodkar, for the respondents/accused countered the submission made on behalf of the applicant with the arguments that the trial Court had taken a plausible view of the entire evidence and even if there is other view possible from the evidence the trial Court committed no error by adopting the view in favour of the accused. According to him the learned trial Court has passed a reasoned order following the analysis of the entire evidence adduced in the said case. He therefore urged the Court to refuse leave to prefer an appeal against impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 6. In the present case there is a medical evidence to corroborate a fact that the complainant/victim has been subjected to physical violence. Even if the so called interested versions of the complainant and his wife are kept a side, one comes across an independent testimony of PW2 Maria Jones who claims to have seen the complainant victim fallen on the ground with bleeding injuries and the accused coming out. She added that she had seen respondent/accused no.1 Dorothy Siqueira and respondent/accused no. 3 Machine Fernandes hitting the complainant with the slippers and this was out side the shop. She further added that she had seen respondent/accused no. 4 Agnelo Pontes and Joseph Colaco standing outside and heard accused saying that they would be killing the complainant. According to the respondents/accused there is material discrepancy between her testimony and the testimonies of the complainant and his wife on the matter of occurrence of the incident at a particular place. However one cannot ignore a fact that incident of assault invariably is a dynamic affair. There is no discussion on this aspect in the impugned judgment. 7. Deserves leave to prefer an appeal. Leave granted. Appeal be numbered. U. D. SALVI, J. vn