1 Cri.A.4090.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4090 OF 2010 Umaji Satwaji Shep ...APPLICANT VERSUS Ramdas Mahadeo Shep and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.A.R.Kale,Advocate holding for Mr.S.V.Natu,Advocate for applicant. Mr.S.B.Choudhary,Advocate holding for Mr.P.P.Dame,Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: U.D.SALVI, J. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER,2011 PER COURT : . Heard. Perused application and the record. 2. The respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, in Summary Criminal Case No. 828 of 2008, by learned Judicial 2 Cri.A.4090.10 Magistrate First Class, Ambajogai, on 30.07.2010. The applicant-original complainant is seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the acquittal. 3. According to the complainant, the trees situate in the house property being No.3-553, Gaud Galli, Ambajogai were been cut and removed in the truck around 5.00 p.m. on 16.10.2007; and respondents-accused in furtherance of their common intention entered the said house property, and voluntarily caused hurt to the labourers of the complainant removing the trees there from and criminally intimidated the complainant by administering mortal threat at that time. 4. The complainant, therefore, lodged a private complaint against accused being Criminal Case No. 828 of 2008, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambajogai and named driver of the Truck Hayyatkhan Burekhan Pathan and two labourers Uttam Kendre and Santosh Kendre as witnesses and none else. However, the complainant 3 Cri.A.4090.10 choose to examine himself and his son Devidas, driver of the truck Hayyatkhan Burekhan Pathan and labour Santosh Kendre and to prove the charges framed under section 448, 323 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied their involvement in the crime and alleged that they were falsely implicated in the said case to deny their share in the house property. 5. The learned trial Court gave due consideration to the evidence led by the parties and noticed that during pendency of the Civil litigation in respect of the said house property between the parties there was prohibitory order restraining cutting of trees in the said house property. The fact of civil dispute between the parties is not in controversy. Cross-examination of P.W.1-Umaji Shep reveals that Madhav Shep his brother had instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 2004 in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambajogai for declaration of ownership and separate possession of his share in the said house 4 Cri.A.4090.10 property, and the said Civil Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and he had preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 09 of 2009 before the District Court and same was pending. His cross- examination further reveled that in the suit, which was then pending at the time of incident, there was prohibitory order directing him not to cut the trees or dispose off soil from the house property. 6. The learned trial Court, upon considering the ratio in the case of Yeshwant Purushottam Vs. Sadashiv Purushottam reported in 1996(2) B.C.J.36, observed that basic ingredient of section 448 of the Indian Penal Code was not established as property in question was held by the complainant on behalf of all members of joint family. Learned trial Court further observed that there was no corroboration from either of the witnesses to the evidence of complainant about use of criminal force or hurt and the abuses were not quoted in the evidence by any one. Reasons for acquittal 5 Cri.A.4090.10 are found incorporated in para Nos. 14 to 17 of the impugned judgment. Learned Advocate could not point out as to what was wrong with the said judgment. No interference is therefore warranted in the impugned judgment and order. Leave is, therefore, refused. The Application stands disposed off accordingly. Sd/- [ U.D.SALVI J.] MTK